HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 06-78 CEQA Amended GuidelinesREQUEST:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPLICANT:
DATE:
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
Consideration and adoption of amended Local Guidelines for
implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub.
Resources Code §§ 2100 ET SEQ.)
Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
City of Palm Desert
June 8, 2006
CONTENTS:
Recommendation
Discussion
Draft Resolution No. 06-78
Best Best & Krieger Staff Report
2006 CEQA Guidelines
Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 06-78 amending and adopting
Local Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act
(Pub. Resources Code §§ 2100 ET SEQ.)
Discussion:
Attached is a staff report from Best Best & Krieger LLP outlining the changes in law
and incorporating amendments into the 2006 Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Submitted by:
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
Approval:
Carlos L. Orte
City Manager
(W pdocs\tm\sr\CEQA06.cc)
Homes' Croy
ACM for Develo"ment Services
j
VERIFIED BY: ,apt' %rp
Original on File with City Clerk's Office
CITY COUNCIL CTION:
APPROVED DENIED
R CEIVvBD OTHER 4t1
LA/0. U(n= l K '
MEETI G DATE 69. ?j 04
AYES: CritdiYj (. 'eand fer uSUi1
ABSENT: A
ABSTAIN:
RESOLUTION NO. 06-78
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT
AMENDING AND ADOPTING LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR
IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (PUB. RESOURCES CODE §§ 21000 ET
SEQ.)
WHEREAS, the California Legislature has amended the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) and the State
CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15000 et seq.) and the California courts have
interpreted specific provisions of CEQA;
WHEREAS, Section 21082 of CEQA requires all public agencies to adopt
objectives, criteria and procedures for the evaluation of public and private projects undertaken or
approved by such public agencies, and the preparation, if required, of environmental impact
reports and negative declarations in connection with that evaluation; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Desert ("City") must revise its local guidelines for
implementing CEQA to make them consistent with the current provisions and interpretations of
CEQA;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Palm Desert hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. The City adopts "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act (2006 Revision)," a copy of which is on file at the offices of the City
and is available for inspection by the public.
SECTION 2. All prior actions of the City enacting earlier guidelines are hereby
repealed.
C IT YISACV TB12006122071.1
ADOPTED this day of , 2006.
Mayor
City of Palm Desert
ATTEST:
City Clerk
City of Palm Desert
SACRAM ENTOUTB\22071. 12
�:�< ;tv�-�.
�
�
�
�+ ''Y% y1.'' .
,`/ �'t
'�i�_
.�� � •
�
U
` �~ 1
- 1 "'� ''�" �i . .
.,� ;�,.
..seY. S. �..:'_ �.�..
� �+ `
• -Y'
� �;
�± / � .
• � ���.
' \ 1 � � , ` �, I ' ' l
. ,Il � .♦ . ' �
t�i, � � �
� 17�
1 ( )1 \\(,I I t �
� , �.� - , ��i
O\ 1 it;ll)
�� ��, ,�, . ,
1;1� I f;till)I
, • ; �,:-.�, ,,,,
ti�l 1;1�f{ \Ic�
�•�!�,. �-, .:�,,
ti�� I)f! (,O
�,��,. _ ,c.��
\l \! ♦l I ( 1;1 i f.
�, • , :, �— , :, .,,
�
�tct �
�
TABLE OF CONTENTS
�
Page
1. GENERAL PROVISIONS, PURPOSE AND POLICY .................................................1-1
1.O 1 General Provisions ..............................................................................................1-1
1.02 Purpose ................................................................................................................1-1
1.03 Applicability ..........:..................................
.......................................................... -
1.04 Reducing Delay and Paperwork .......................................................................... l-2
1.05 Compliance With State Law ....................................................... :......................1-3
1.06 Terminology ........................................................................................................1-3
1.07 PartialInvalidity ..................................................................................................1-3
1.08 Electronic Delivery of Comments and Notices ..................................................1-3
2. LEAD AND RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES .................................................................... 2-1
2.01 Lead Agency Principle ........................................................................................ 2-1
2.02 Selection Of Lead Agency .................................................................................. 2-1
2.03 Duties Of A Lead Agency ...........................................................................:.......2-1
2.04 Consultation Requirements For Development Projects ......................................2-2
2.05 Responsible Agency Principle ............................................................................ 2-3
2.06 Duties Of A Responsible Agency ....................................................................... 2-3
2.07 Response To Notice Of Preparation By Responsible Agencies .........................2-3
2.08 Use Of Final EIR Or Negative Declaration By Responsible Agencies .............. 2-4
2.09 Shift In Lead Agency Responsibilities ...............................................................2-4
3. ACTNI'I'IES EXEMPT FROM CEQA ......................................................................... 3-1
3.01 Actions Subject To CEQA .....................................:............................................3-1
3.02 Ministerial Projects ............................................................................................. 3-1
3.03 Exemptions In General ....................................................................................... 3-2
3.04 Preliminary Exemption Assessment ................................................................... 3-2
3.05 Notice Of Exemption .......................................................................................... 3-2
3.06 Disapproved Projects .......................................................................................... 3-2
3.07 No Possibility Of Significant Effect ................................................................... 3-3
3.08 Emergency Projects ............................................................................................ 3-3
3.09 Feasibility And Planning Studies ........................................................................ 3-3
3.10 Rates, Tolls, Fares And Charges ......................................................................... 3-3
3.11 Subsurface Pipelines Within A Public Right-Of-Way ........................................3-4
3.12 Certain Residential Housing Projects ................................................................. 3-4
3.13 Minor Alterations To Fluoridate Water Utilities ................................................ 3-9
3.14 Ballot Measures .................................................................................................. 3-9
3.15 Other Specific Exemptions ............................................................................... 3-10
3.16 Categorical Exemptions .................................................................................... 3-10
4. TIME LIIVIITATIONS ....................................................................................................4-1
4.01 Review Of Private Project Applications ............................................................. 4-1
4.02 Determination Of Environmental Lnpact ...........................................................4-1
4.03 Completion And Adoption Of Negative Declaration ......................................... 4-1
SACUTB�2006\CITY122869.3 1 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
5.
Q
4.04 Completion And Certification Of Final EIR .......................................................4-1
4.05 Projects Subject To The Pernut Streamlining Act ..............................................4-1
4.06 Projects, Other Than Those Subject To The Permit Streamlining Act, With
Short Time Periods For Approval ........................................................................ 4-2
4.0? Suspension Of Time Periods ...............................................................................4-2
INITIALSTUDY ............................................................................................................5-1
5.01
5.02
5.03
5.04
5.05
5.06
5.07
5.08
5.09
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13
5.14
5.15
5.16
5.17
5.18
Preparation Of Initial Study ................................................................................ 5-1
Informal Consultation With Other Agencies ...................................................... 5-1
Consultation With Private Project Applicant ......................................................5-1
AnInitial Study ................................................................................................... 5-2
Contents Of Initial Study .................................................................................... 5-2
Use Of A Checklist Initial Study ........................................................................ 5-3
._.__
Evaluating Significant Environmental Effects .................................................... 5-3
Mandatory Findings Of Significant Effect .........................................................5-4
Mandatory Preparation Of An EIR For Waste-Burning Projects ....................... 5-5
Development Pursuant To An Existing Community Plan And EIR ................... 5-6
LandUse Policies ............................................................................................... 5-7
Evaluating Impacts On Historica] Resources .....................................................5-7
Evaluating Impacts On Archaeological Sites ..................................................... 5-8
Consultation With Water Agencies Regarding Large Development
Projects................................................................................................................ 5-9
Subdivisions With More Than 500 Dwelling Units .........................................5-10
Impactsto Oak Woodlands ...............................................................................5-10
Environmental Impact Assessment ...................................................................5-10
FinalDeternunation ..........................................................................................5-11
NEGATNE DECLARATION ....................................................................................... 6-1
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
6.07
6.08
6.09
6.10
6.11
Decision To Prepare A Negative Declazation .....................................................b-1
Decision To Prepare A Mitigated Negative Declaration .................................... 6-1
Contracting For Preparation Of Negative Declaration .......................................6-1
Notice Of Intent To Adopt A Negative Declaration Or Mitigated Negative
Declaration.......................................................................................................... 6- I
Posting And Publication Of Negative Declaration Or Mitigated Negative
Declaration.......................................................................................................... 6-2
Submission Of Negative Declaration Or Mitigated Negative Declaration
To State Clearinghouse ....................................................................................... 6-3
Special Notice Requirements For Waste And Fuel Burning Projects ................ 6-5
Consultation With Water Agencies Regarding Large Development
Projects................................................................................................................ 6-5
Content Of Negative Declaration ........................................................................ 6-5
Adoption Of Negative Declaration Or Mitigated Negative Declaration ............ 6-5
Mitigation Reporting Or Monitoring Program For Mitigated Negative
Declaration................................................................................... ... 6-6
SACUTB\2006\CI'{'Y�22869.3 Il OBest Best & Krieger LLP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
{
7
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
6.17
6.18
Approval Or Disapproval Of Project .................................................................. 6-7
Recirculation Of A Negative Declaration Or Mitigated Negative
Declaration.......................................................................................................... 6-7
Notice Of Determination On A Project For Which A Proposed Negative
Or Mitigated Negative Declaration Has Been Approved ................................... 6-8
Addendum To Negative Declazation .................................................................. 6-9
Subsequent Negative Declaration ....................................................................... 6-9
PrivateProject Costs .........................................................................................6-10
Filing Fees For Projects Which Affect Wildlife Resources ..............................6-10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAG"I' REPORT ..................................................................... 7-1
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
7.05
7.06
7.07
7.08
7.09
7.10
7.11
7.12
7.13
7.14
7.15
7.16
7.17
7.18
7.19
7.20
7.21
7.22
723
7.24
7.25
7.26
7.27
7.28
729
7.30
7.31
Decision To Prepare An EIR .............................................................................. 7-1
Coniracting For Preparation Of EIRs ................................................................. 7-1
Notice Of Preparation Of Draft EIR ...........................................................:....... 7-1
PreparationOf Draft EIR .................................................................................... 7-2
Consultation With Other Agencies And Persons ................................................7-2
Early Consultation On Projects Involving Permit Issuance ................................7-3
Consultation With Water Agencies Regarding Large Development
Projects................................................................................................................ 7-3
AirportLand Use Plan ........................................................................................ 7-3
General Aspects Of An EIR ................................................................................ 7-3
Use Of Registered Consultants In Preparing EIRs ............................................. 7-4
Incorporation By Reference ................................................................................7-4
Standards For Adequacy Of An EIR ..................................................................7-4
FormAnd Content Of EIR ..................................................................................7-5
Analysis Of Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................ 7-6
Analysis Of Mitigation Measures ....................................................................... 7-7
Analysis Of Alternatives In An EIR ................................................................... 7-9
Analysis Of Future Expansion .......................................................................... 7-11
Notice Of Completion Of Draft EIR .................................................................7-11
Submission Of Draft EIIZ To State Clearinghouse ........................................... 7-12
Special Notice Requirements For Waste And Fuel Burning Projects .............. 7-13
Review Of Draft EIR By Other Agencies And Persons ................................... 7-13
Time For Review Of Draft EIR; Failure To Comment .....................................7-14
Public Hearing On Draft EIR ............................................................................ 7-15
Response To Comments On Draft EIR ............................................................. 7-15
Preparation And Conterits Of Final EIR ........................................................... 7-16
Recirculation When New Information Is Added To EIR ................................. 7-16
Certification Of Final EIR ................................................................................7-17
Consideration Of EIR Before Approval Or Disapproval Of Project ................7-17
Findings............................................................................................................. 7-17
Special Findings Required For Facilities Which May Emit Hazardous Air
Emissions Near Schools ............................................................................... 7-18
Statement Of Overriding Considerations ..........................................................7-19
SACUTB\20061CITY\22869.3
�
OBest Best & Krieger LLP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
E?
7.32 Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program For EIR .................................... 7-19
7.33 Notice Of Determination ...................................................................................7-21
7.34 Disposition Of A Final EIR .............................................................................. 7-22
7.35 Private Project Costs ...................................................................-......................7-22
7.36 Filing Fees For Projects Which Affect Wildlife Resources ..............................7-22
TYPESOF EIRS .......................................................................................�.................... 8-1
:�
:1
:�
• �.
:�
: �.
:�
. .
.
: 1'
. �
:
ProjectEIR ..........................................................................................................8-1
SubsequentEIR ................................................................................................... 8-1
SupplementalEIR ............................................................................................... 8-2
AddendumTo An EIlZ ........................................................................................ 8-2
TieredEIR ........................................................................................................... 8-2
StagedEIR .......................................................................................................... 8-4
ProgramEIR ....................................................................................................... 8-4
Use of a Program EIR with Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations ......... 8-4
Use of an EIR From an Earlier Project ............................................................... 8-5
MasterEIR .......................................................................................................... 8-5
FocusedEIR ........................................................................................................ 8-6
�
10.
CEQALI'1 IGATION ...................................................................................................... 9-1
9.01 Timelines .............................................................................................................9-1
9.02 Administrative Record ........................................................................................9-1
DEFINITIONS..............................................................................................................10-1
10.01
10.02
10.03
10.04
10.05
10.06
10.07
10.08
10.09
10.10
10.11
10.12
10.13
10.14
10.15
10.16
IO.l7
10.18
10.19
10.20
«APPlicant" .......................................................................................................10-1
«APProval" ........................................................................................................1 �-1
�.Baseline" .........................................................................................................10-1
«CEQA" ............................................................................................................10-1
«Categorical Exemption" ..................................................................................10-1
«City" ................................................................................................................10-1
«Clerk" ..............................................................................................................10-2
"Community-Level Environmental Review" ...................................................10-2
«Cumulative Impacts" .......................................................................................10-2
«Cumulatively Considerable" ...........................................................................10-2
«Decision-making Body ....................................................................................10-2
�.Developed Open Space" .................................................................................10-2
.�Development Project" .....................................................................................10-3
«Discretionary Project" ..................................................................................... 10-3
«Draft EIlZ" .......................................................................................................10-3
«Emergency„ .....................................................................................................10-3
"Endangered, Rare or Threatened Species" ...................................................... 10-3
�.Environment" .................................................................................................. 10-4
. <EIR" ......... .... ... ...... . .. . .. . . . .. . ... ... ... .. .. .. ... . . . ... ... ..... . . . . .. .. . .. .. . .. ..... . .. ... ..... . . . . .. . . . . . ... . 10-4
<<Feasible" ..........................................................................................................10-4
SAClIT6\2006\CTTY�22869.3 lV OBest Best & Krieger LLP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
��" • (continued}
. Page
10.21
10.22
10.23
10.24
10.25
10.26
10.27
10.28
10.29
10.30
10.31
10.32
10.33
10.34
10.35
10.36
10.37
10.38
10.39
10.40
10.41
10.42
10.43
10.44
10.45
10.46
10.47
10.48
10.49
10.50
10.51
10.52
10.53
10.54
10.55
10.56
10.57
10.58
10.59
10.60
10.61
10.62
«Final EIR" ............................................................,
"Historical Resources" ...........................................
«Infill Site" .............................................................
«Initial Study„ ........................................................
.�Jurisdiction by Law" ............................................
"Land Disposal Facility ..........................................
"Large Treatment Facility" ....................................
�.Lead Agency .........................................................
"Low-Income Households" .:.................
"Low- and Moderate-Income Households" ...........
.�Major Transit Stop ................................................
«Ministerial" ..........................................................
"l�fiEigated Negative Declaration" .........................
�.Mitigation" ...........................................................
"Negative Declaration" ..........................................
"Notice of Completion" .........................................
"Notice of Deternunation" ...................:.................
"Notice of Exemption" .........................................,
"Notice of Preparation" .........................................,
..Oak" ....................................................................
«Oak Woodlands" .................................................
«Offsite Facility .....................................................
�.Person" ................................................................
«Private Project" ...................................................
�.Project" ................................................................
"Project-Specific Effects" .....................................
�.Qualified Urban Use" ..........................................
.�Residential" .........................................................
«Responsible Agency„ ..........................................
«Signiiicant Effect" ...............................................
�.Staff' ...................................................................
�.Standard" .............................................................
«State Guidelines" .................................................
"Substantial Evidence" .........................................
�.Tiering„ ...............................................................
"Transportation Facilities" ....................................
«Trustee Agency ....................................................
«Urbanized Area" ..................................................
"Urban Growth Boundary" ...................................
«Wetlands" ............................................................
«Wildlife Habitat" .................................................
"Zo in A roval"
.........................................10-4
.. ........................................10-4
,. ........................................10-5
. .........................................10-5
..........................................10-5
..........................................10-5
..........................................10-6
..........................................10-6
..........................................10-6
..........................................10-6
..........................................10-6
..........................................10-6
..........................................10-6
....................................:..... ia�
..........................................10-7
..........................................10-7
..........................................10-7
..........................................10-7
..........................................10-7
..........................................10-7
..........................................10-7
. ..........................................10-7
,. .........................................10-8
,.. ........................................10-8
...........................................10-8
...........................................10-8
...........................................10-8
...........................................10-9
...........................................10-9
...........................................10-9
...........................................10-9
...........................................10-9
...........................................10-9
...........................................10-9
.........................................10-10
.........................................10-10
.........................................10-10
.........................................10-10
.........................................10-11
......................................... 10-11
.........................................10-11
n� PP .................................................... i n_ i i
S ACV TB12006\CITY�22869.3
V
OO Best Best & Krieger LLP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
11. FORMS .............................................................................................................11-1
SACU?B�2006\CITY�22869.3 Vl OBest Best & Krieger LLP
` ..
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Quality Act (2006)
Excerpted from these Local Guidelines for Implementing
the California Environmental Quality Act
C
ACTION
(A)
(B)
Staff Summary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
STAFF SUMMARY OF THE CEQA EVALUATION PROCESS
Staff determines whether the City is Lead or
Responsible Agency for the proposed activity.
(1) As a I.ead Agency, the City shall decide
whether a Negative Declaration, Mitigated
Negative Declaration or an EIR will be
required and shall prepare and consider the
document before making its decision on
whether and how to approve the proposed
activity.
(2) As a Responsible Agency, the City shall
provide data as requested by the Lead
Agency, consider the documents prepared by
the Lead Agency and reach its own conciu-
sion on whether and how to approve the
proposed activity.
Staff examines proposed activity ("project") ta
determ.ine whether it is exempt.
(1) The project can be exempt for any of the
following reasons:
(a) The activity does not come within the
legal definition of "project."
( SACVTB�21717.1\CITY�2006 -vii-
GUIDELINES SECTION
REFERENCE
2.01, 2.02
2.04, 2.05, 2.06
2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.09
3.01
K�i�1
� 2006 Best Best & Krieger L,LP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Quality Act (2006)
(b) It is a disapproved project.
�.
(c) It can be seen with certainty that there 3.07
is no possibility that the activity may
have a significant effect on the
environment.
(d) It is a ministerial, not discretionary,
action taken by the City.
(e) It is covered by one of the exemptions
in the CEQA statute.
( fl It is covered by one of the exemptions
in the State Guidelines.
(2) If the activity is deternuned to be exempt,
Staff completes and files internally a
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
(Form "A"). A Notice of Exemption
(Form "B") should be filed with the Clerk
followin� City approval of a project. (Attach
Form "A", too.) The Clerk must post the
Notice within twenty-four (24) hours of its
receipt, and the Notice must remain posted for
thirty (30) days. A thirty-five (35) day statute
of limitations for legal challenges begins to
run onlv if and when the Notice of Exemption
is filed with the Clerk. If no Notice is filed,
the statute of limitations for legal challenges
is one hundred eighty (180) days.
�
Staff Summary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
3.08, 3.09, 3.10, 3.11,
3.12,3.13,3.14,3.15
3.03
3.04, 3.05
(3) If the activity is not exempt, Staff proceeds 5.01
with its own environmental evaluation, begin-
ning with the preparation of an Initial Study.
(See Section (C) below.)
SANTB�21717. 11CITY12006 -viii- p 2006 Best Best & Krieger LLP
C
�
�,.
�
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2006)
(4) If anyone requests a copy of the Notice of
Exemption prior to the date on which the City
deternunes the activity is exempt, the copy
must be mailed, first class postage prepaid,
within five (5) days of the City's
determination. If such a request is made
following the City's determination, then the
copy should be mailed in the same manner as
soon as possible.
(C) Staff Preparation of an Initial Study.
(1) All Responsible and any Trustee Agencies
must be consulted in the preparation of the
Initial Study.
(2) The City shall hold a scoping meeting if
required.
(3) Staff prepares an Initial Study, including the
environmental checklist form (Form "J") and
all explanations as necessary.
(4) Based on the results of the Initial Study, Staff
prepares an Environmental Impact
Assessment (Form "C") for internal use only.
Staff Summary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
K�i��
5.01
5.02
7.05
5.01, 5.05, 5.06
5.07, 5.08
(a) If Staff concludes that the project will 5.04, 5.17, 6.02
not have a significant effect on the
environment, then it must recommend
that a Negative Declaxation be
prepared.
, sAcvTs�»». ��crr�oob -;X-
O 2006 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2006)
(b) If Staff concludes that the project
could result in significant
environmental effects but that the
significant effects identified in the
Initial Study have been avoided or
mitigated to a point where clearly no
significant effects would occur by
revisions in the project plans or
proposals made by or agreed to by the
applicant, then it must recommend
that a Mitigated Negative Declaration
be prepared.
Staff Summary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
5.04, 5.05
(c) If Staff concludes that the project 5.16
could or may have a significant effect
on the environment, it must
recommend that an Environmental
Impact Report be prepared.
(D) Staff Preparation of a Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
(1) If Staff recommends preparation of a
Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Staff must prepare a Draft
Negative Declaration (Form "E") (unsigned
but otherwise fully completed including a
statement of supporting reasons) and fill out a
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative
Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declazation
(Form "D"). For a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Staff must also attach to
Form "E" a description of mitigation
measures for each significant impact.
6.01, 6.02
6.02, 6.04, 6.08
1'
�
SACU?B121717. 1\CTTY12006 -x- 0 2006 Best Best & Krieger LLP
!..
t�
%
`
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2006)
(2) Staff must then post a copy of the Notice of
Intent, the Draft Negative Declaration/
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial
Study at the City's offices. The Notice must
also be posted in the office of the Clerk of
each County in which the project is located
within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt by
the Clerk, and must remain posted for a
minimum of twenty (20) days, unless
otherwise required by law to be posted for
thirty (30) days.
(3) At least twenty (20) days before the final
adoption of the Negative
Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Staff must give Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (Form "D") by mail to the last
known name and address of all individuals
and organizations who have previously
requested such notice and by at least one of
the following:
(a) publishing once in a newspaper of
general circulation, or if more than
one area will be affected, in the
newspaper of Iargest circulation from
among the newspapers of general
circulation in those areas;
(b) posting on and off site where the
project is to be located; .
(c) mailing to owners and occupants of
contiguous property.
r sAcvTs�z»i�. i�crr�oob -X�-
Staff Summary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
.1� .1
6.04, 6.05, 6.06, 6.07
6.05
6.05
. ��
� 2006 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2006)
Staff Summary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
A public review period at least as long as the 6.04, 6.05, 6.06
period of review by the State Clearinghouse is
required for Negadve Declarations or
Mitigated Negative Declazations sent to the
State Clearinghouse.
(4) At the time noticed for the meeting on the
Draft Negative Declaration, the City
considers the matter. Comments, if any, from
the public and Responsible Agencies and
Trustee Agencies which pertain to resources
under their authority and are received within
the public comment period must be
considered. If the City deternunes in light of
the whole record that the project will not have
a significant effect on the environment, it
adopts the Negative Declaration/ Mitigated
Negative Declaration. For a Mitigated
Negative Declaration, the City must also
adopt a mitigation monitoring or reporting
program. In either case, the City must specify
the location and custodian of the documents
which constitute the record of proceedings.
(If the City finds, in light of the whole record,
that the project may have a significant effect
on the environment, it must order the
preparation of an EIR.)
���i� ML�)��
Move that this City finds in light of the whole
record that the project .will not have a
significant effect on the environment, the
Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative
Declaration reflects the independent judgment
of the City, and that the Negative
Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration
as proposed by Staff be adopted.
6.10, 6.11, 7.01
�._
SAC11TB121717. I\CITY12006 -xii- O 2006 Best Best & Krieger LLP
t
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Quality Act (2006)
(5) T'he City can act upon the project after 6.12
reviewing, considering, and adopting the
Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
MOTION:
Move approval of the project, and direct Staff
to file and post a Notice of Deternunation in
accordance with the City's Guidelines.
�
(6) Staff must file a Notice of Deternunation
(Form "F") with the Clerk and also with the
Office of Planning and Research if the project
requires state agency approval within five (5)
working days of approval. A fee of $1,250
shall be paid at this time to the Clerk for
projects which will adversely affect wildlife
resources. (Refer to the Index at the end of
this Staff Summary to see whether a handling
fee or administration fee is also due.) The
Notice must be posted in the Clerk's office
within� twenty-four (24) hours of receipt by
the Clerk, and must remain posted for a
minimum of thirty (30) days.
(7) Staff simultaneously and conspicuously posts
Notice of Deternunation at the City's offices.
(8) A thirty (30) day statute of limitations for
legal challenges usually begins to run onlv
after the Notice of Determination has been
filed with and posted by the Clerk (and with
the Office of Planning and Research if
approval by any State agency is involved).
� sAcv1-am�». ��crrn2oo6 -X,;�-
Staff Summary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
6.13, 6. 17
C�Ic:
6.13
� 2006 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2006)
(9) If anyone requests a copy of the Notice of
Determination prior to the date on which the
City adopts the Negative
Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration,
the copy must be mailed, first class postage
prepaid, within five (5) days of the City's
determination. If such a request is made
following the City's determination, then the
copy should be mailed in the same manner as
soon as possible.
(E) Staff Preparation of an EIR.
(1) If an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") is
required, the City as Lead Agency shall send
a Notice of Preparation (Form "G") to all
Responsible and any Trustee Agencies, and
the Office of Planning and Research. A
Notice of Completion (Form "H") must be
attached as a cover sheet when a Notice of
Prepazation is submitted to the Office of
Planning and Research. Responsible and
Trustee Agencies must respond within thirty
(30) days. The Notice must be posted in the
office of the Clerk for each county in which
the project is located within twenty-four (24)
hours of receipt by the Clerk, and must
remain posted for thirty (30) days.
Staff Summary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
6.13
7.01
7.03
�.
�
SACUTB�21717. I\CITY\2006 . -x;v- � 2006 Best Best & Krieger LLP
t
�
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2006)
(2) Staff shall commence preparation of a Draft
EIR. Staff may begin work on it immediately
without awaiting responses to the Notice of
Preparation. If a Draft EIR, EIR or Focused
EIR is prepared under contract to the City, the
contract for work must be executed within
forty-five (45) days from the date the City
sends the Notice of Preparation, unless an
extension is mutually agreed upon by the City
and project applicant. Early consultation
("scoping") is advisable during the drafting of
the ElR with all Responsible Agencies,
Trustee Agencies and interested individuals
and organizations of which staff is reasonably
aware.
(3) Upon completion of the Draft EIR, Staff shall
file a Notice of Completion (Form "H"} with
the Office of Planning and Research and give
the Notice inviting comment upon the Draft
EIR (Form "K") by mail to the last known
names and addresses of all individuals and
organizations who have previously requested
such notice and by at least one of the
following:
(a) publishing once in a newspaper of
general circulation, or if more than
one area will be affected, in the
newspaper of largest circulation from
among the newspapers of general
circulation in those areas;
(b) posting on and off site where the
project is to be located;
(c) mailing to owners and occupants of
contiguous property.
� SACVTB1217]7.11CITY12006
� -xv-
Staff Summary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
7.03, 7.04, 7.05, 7.11
7.18
7.18
7.18
7.18
� 2006 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Quality Act (2006)
The Notice shali be posted in the Clerk's
office of each county in which the project is
located, within twenty-four (24) hours of
receipt by the Clerk, and shall remain posted
for a minimum of thirty (30} days. This
begins the comment period, which will be at
least thirty (30) to forty-five (45) days
depending on the project.
7.18
Staff Summary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
(4) The decision-making body may at its 7.23
discretion conduct a public hearing on the
Draft EIR no sooner than fourteen (14} days
after filing of the Notice of Completion but
before the expiration of the comment period.
(5) Comments on the Draft EIR are evaluated by
Staff, responses are compiled and a Final EIR
is prepared. At least ten (10) days prior to
certifying a Final EIR, the City shall provide a
written response to any agency which has
made comments on the Draft EIR.
7.24, 7.25
(6) If "significant" new information is added to 7.26
the EIR or if the Draft EIR is so inadequate
and conclusory that meaningful public review
and comment were precluded, notice and
consultation must be repeated.
SACVTB121717. ]\CITY12006 -xvi- 0 2006 Best Bes[ & Krieger LLP
�
i
C
�
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2006)
(7) Staff considers the Final EIR and makes a
recommendation to the decision-making body
regarding whether the Final EIR is in order
and whether it has been completed in
compliance with CEQA, the State Guidelines
and the City's local guidelines. The Final EIR
and the recommendation is presented to the
City Council which shall certify that the Final
EIR is in order and has been completed in
compliance with CEQA, the State Guidelines,
and the City's Guidelines, or refer it back to
Staff for further work. A mitigation
monitoring or reporting program must also be
adopted.
MOTION:
Move that this City Council finds and certifies
that the Final EIR has been completed in
compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, the State
Guidelines, and the City's Local Guidelines,
that it has reviewed and considered the
information contained therein in making its
decision on the project, and the Final EIR
reflects the independent judgment of the City
Council.
(8) The decision-making body must review and
consider the information in the EIR before
considering and approving the project.
(9) Before the decision-making body approves a
project, findings must be made as to whether
each significant effect identified in the EIR
will be mitigated, why alternatives which
could reduce environmental impacts were
rejected, and, in some cases, where the record
can be reviewed.
� SACVTB121717. ]1C1TY�2006 -xvii-
Staff Summazy of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
7.27, 7.28, 7.29
7.28
7.29, 7.30, 7.32
� 2006 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2006)
(10) Before the decision-making approves a
project which allows significant effects to
occur without mitigating these effects to a
level of insignificance, it must make written
findings setting forth the overriding
considerations which led the decision-making
body to forego full mitigation. The location
and custodian of the documents which
constitute the record of proceedings shall be
specified.
MOTION:
Move approval of the project for the
following reasons:
[State in writing reasons to support approval]
and further find that:
[Incorporate one or more findings of
overriding considerations.]
(11) If the project is approved, the decision-
making body directs Staff to prepare a Notice
of Deternunation (Form "F").
��LiTi��i `�
Move approval and instruct Staff to prepare
and file a Notice of Determination thereon
pursuant io the City's Guidelines.
Staff Summary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
7.29, 7.31, 7.32
7.33
SAC11TB121717. 11CITY12006 -xviii- � 2006 Best Besi & Krieger LLP
C
{
I
�,
l
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Quality Act (2006)
(12) Staff must iile a Notice of Detemunation with
the Clerk and also with the Office of Planning
and Research if the project requires State
approval within five (5} working days of
approval. The Clerk must post the Notice
within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt. A
fee of $850 shall be paid at this time to the
Clerk for projects which will adversely affect
wildlife resources. (Refer to the Index at the
end of this Staff Summary to see whether a
handling fee or administration fee is also
due.) The Notice shall be posted in the office
of the Clerk for thirty (30) days. If a
Statement of Overriding Considerations is
adopted, this must be noted in the Notice of
Deternunation.
(13) Staff simultaneously and conspicuously posts
Notice of Determ.ination at the City Ha11,
(14) The thirty (30) day statute of limitations for
legal challenges usually begins to run onlv
after the Notice of Determination has been
filed with the Clerk (and with the Office of
Planning and Research if approval by any
State agency is involved).
(15) If anyone requests a copy of the Notice of
Determination prior to the date on which the
City certifies the Final EIR, the copy must be
mailed, first class postage prepaid, within five
(S) days of the City's deternunation. If such a
request is made following the City's
determination, then the copy should be mailed
in the same manner as soon as possible.
( sAcuTs�z»». ��crrn2oo6 -X�x-
Staff Summary of the
CEQA Evaluation Process
7.33, 7.34, 7.36
7.33
7.33
7.33
� 2006 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Cl
�`
�
F
z
�
�
�
V
z
�
�
�
d
E�
z
�
a
r�
�
LT7
O
E�
�C
W
A
�
o.
.�
�
V
Qi
U y V N
U � O� � N y'bt� aG
� 'p L� W� v� O ��� v �p ��Q Q' j °�
VJ � � � � � y. V1 y� w � w G7 ��
U C[� fn �� N E .�G U N O C 7 °�
i c� GG "° � �> N U °o i� v � c� X�� c�o p m
U a� >, �� c' L N� a o U�N � ¢�•� o� R>,cMv m
�, `„� v� c Gc.1 U� M c'� � y�` =� ,� U w d p„ �� �
c..� °� o a� ai ¢ � � • o� o a°�i � �«¢ V w c`d u >, e V �
Cj �U ow� � o a�i c¢ V`i Q U e o � 3 �� �'� � o�U �
;� o -a0 �r Uv� ,�U �vsV . � � 0 2�.:. �d
` 'o Q° o3i ci � °c •�� y �[i; y��� a�i o A z� c� c�i oog�°
� ¢� � 'wU�a w�Nw ��w ��w �a�. °�° � �=oa �G=�x
N
l� .-.
� �N
.: c
��
� �
00 v') C o0 M N M 00 �'C
D � M� � V�'1 N N K cN�", C�
v'� .-, c+; [� � O
Zi M. � � � � p�p � � ONO tp
_ ` � � � � � � � Q� r�i�
S O � Q,' v�'1 O �D � �D h Q
C. c� �n ... �n r t� t� �o �n ..
�
0
U
0
,rr �
ii �
� �
U
� �'
o� �
C U
0
� � �
C
� ir .+
L y
C w �--�
� •� o
� b N
ca e �
� �
�
U Q
Ix.w
a�
U
4.TI
e
�
U
�
w
�
�
>
.�
�
Ln
w
�
C
d
Z
3
�+
C
O
S
6�9�
0
�
A
fil
f�.n
�
U
�
a
0
U
�
w
�
�
>
.�
�
L
w
A
C
�
�
3
�
C
O
8
�
0
�
�
�
w
�
�
U
�,
e
�
0
U
�
O
O
.�
.�
O
N
�
b
0
�
�
�
.�
a�
U
�
�
0
U
y
C
O
.�
.�
S
vi
N
�
�
.�
E
�
L
�
U
>,
.i�i
0
U
�
w
z
°,
e
�
IY.+
�
>,
�
0
0
U
H
O
R
..��+
.N
8
N
�
�
�
e
.0
�
a
�
C
O
.�
�
.N
O
vi
h
�
�
a
�
x
k
�O
S
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Q
�
�
�
�
�
�
hz
�
a
�
E�+
z
�
Q
�
�
Fzl
O
H
�
W
A
z
�
y
�
d'
�
z
C
�
i:r
�
[
UQ
�3
C
�
GL
C
� a
� a
4
wN � �
O T N O Q w � ,_„ O �
y Cd � � � 4+ � y �
� � Lo3o r' p� = fx° O � e � �a�i o m
G. «L'•h � � SL L1C� U� �" �'J' ,� C� U� MN
o cn� .�e �o � ..v � Rc� V v�o i Qo`^C � o��� m
O a� V�'. �� "U U�� c °` V� �a x-- go� y�
,_, n. o �� �U o ��� �5
>, ¢ y Q U �a o Q U° oo Q
� e� V.a? ESV � �� °cC7Q o� sV o� �� >,° ��U e
�� j o o c w cv � U o V � �� V V o o� V p°q $� �>, .� ��
�°'z `a' ¢g � 3 'c�—a C i° 'g� � � °O^`�:° � �o �'=
.�l tfi �c�C VQi �'
V..> N.--1 r.a � f1: iZ � LL M V� �.. v�'1 r`� r�' f.ti+ ��N Q. r� f•1� �n 0�1 �i U N'3 V�
.-. �
T �
a�
C �
.". O
� �
�. ^
�, y � �„� U � C C v�
C g � � �� �
N� N �Oti � � `NO� hU V��1
�w � �w �� � � � � v�'�
�,. � 4,
N c�5 �i '�u, [ � p �v, p � �
�D O M �p M
�
OQ ,n v¢ t�¢ ,n¢ �¢ o0
� �
c Q7
� O
d
UC
�
�
�
>
.�
�
w
o �
�� A
C ° 3
:� a a,
C .r e
►"f." ,G O
0
� � �
Ae �
�
� �
U �
�
.�
N
a
�
Q
ts
0
.�
3
.�
S
v�i
�
�
�
�
�
¢
0
a
F
�
U
�
C
0
U
�
0
.�
B
.y
8
0
�
�
�
1x.�
�
U
�
C
c
U
0
.�
3
.N
8
Vi
�
0
�
�
a�
�
f�n
�
U
..�'
7
0
U
0
.�
�
.N
8
N
�
�
�
�L+
N
U
�
G
0
U
�
0
z
�
0
�
�
N
U
T
C
7
U
,s
�
3
.y
ee
g
�
�
�
�
�
0
�
i
1
X �,
� �
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
d
�
{,,
�(..�
1�-�
�
Q
�
z
�r
a
�
�
E�
z
�
�
�
�
W
�
J'C
A
H
Hy
L
b
Q
L
�
D
L'
0
a
u
.�
0
U
c
%
L
�
G
i
U � �
� � �.. � O
`a" '9 � O�
U .� O O O .� � pMp Q� h
'+�". C � O� � 0.i � 6" Di C C�t
� � � b � � � � � b > �
N a N V � ��� � i:» O A V�' 1 � Q Q�
d d O� Ci G¢ V R" � Q.-�. N � � � C� � U
'J' � � a� �, �- C a` p Q O � O
T� �� �QV � �V ` o.�¢ (�M "V pq � 3.g
cN �°` 'o �� c a� a�U�V g� � o �v� op�v
0 0 o U �,� � � U � e U.ti x°� a�i o �� �., �¢ �
cVy � U cd c�a � c�a U o°�o .? � ���� e�a � oo c�a se e Z f�
�
r
ca Q�=o caa a�i ,� a�i �� N � o? �� cVc O'' $ R � � o�o eCa
iZ CL �� Zi �-. O� Zi W�^'� C/� C„� Ci is. LY. C/j Q. ��D Cn U U M Cn
� O '�-
� � �
M M 0
1f) V'� c�..
O O y
��Q
L
N
U
�
c
�
0
U
� �
. �
�
W �
g°'
>
0
M �
O � �
�
Gir �" � A
pp C �� U
C '.�'1 ..�. G.
Cy N «s
QI y C� �
pC"c S� >,
U
�y '� V� �l� �
Ca d � 3 �
�
� a
� z
�
::
�
� � N
I V I
� y� M
� y �
�; ¢
� � �
�
�
0
U
�r
�
e
�
0
U
a
0
.�
e
� �
O �
E C�
K �
� O
w �
O •^
�z
�� o
z �.
��
� O
,� O
fV
� b�9�
V
�
�
e
�
0
U
�
`o �
� v
� �,
U >
� n.
� w
G �
�
U �V
c�
r.T1
�U
z�
cd
ro
>
z
b�0
0
�
0
�
M �
c�
O �
w.
0�0 �
.�.y �
a
0
ix..
�
>,
a
� '
0
U
O
.�
�
.�
�
sRs
'd
y
i
>
a
O ^
�O l� U � M �
� � . �
� �
� p O � O ¢
o� oo u. o� o� ..
�
d
U
y
c
0
U
-• O
.�
�
.�
8
N
�
0
C
�
w
�
�
�
0
�
�
c
.�
a�
U
0
_ '�
O �
n.��
Qi �
W �
O O
U U
zz
�
w � .>
8 O �
�
s��s s`��s 3
0
c
b
c`a
G
�
�
e
b
�
a.
�
i
�
�
a`3
m
�
�
�
:�
K
�O
S
�
U
�
�
�
�
Q
�
�
�
�
�
V
�
a
�
a
�
E�
�
0
a
�
�
W
0
yC
A
�
�
b
d
L
�
D
�
C.
.fl
a
�
ti
0
U
S
i.i
�
a
A
�
a
�
= � � � U E t��.
�p y t� C N O � w C `� � U
p�� � V� � � O � i�G � C � w
> O O� w ^ � ,_.
�s N ��� � 0�¢ �py°•� y w� �¢� O�O�
°>, o N �>, N w U b V �v o v� ¢ V v� � V•�° g ���
� ��°` � 3°' �°o,>,a oV �V � o°` >'°e�•� U'¢
¢3 �v :Exv ;�.� �.� ca � �� ;o �v a�Q � �v
�.n y�
o�u c x o°,� Q � o°c U� o� ��� a V x � w V'� V o s �
?? o�,� �p�, ,?? y•a�•a cpq¢Ca � o �a,a ° a� U� �
Li c Li a Li c.a ��..7 se ca W rg �� 3� � v� � ca I�
e:: O e � e � a^ e � e�n e s Q c�: "� a g e �,�
v�¢a;ri .°U--�n Uzn—�n U�n��n E�a °,�a >oo> �o��
0
0
N
i
�
.-�
�
'b � �U
1� y 00 � C V� �O h�
� 3 � cV °O c`��i N 0O w
.� 4^ -� oo � t+ � O� F"
vr�j y'" � h � C N � '�% w
�¢ O O � � C M Q,'
�O � 00 00 C4 V� 00 ��..�
N
a�
U
�
c
0
U
o a
� g�
• � c•:
T
� �
� y :O
O y A V
6� O L
� C � �
e � �o �
� � O �
w o�
_ '� g �
�.
w ,� ,� _
Q Q � .�
0
w
�
� Q
U v�
�
�
�
e
0
U
h
a
.3
.�
8
N
vg
�.
�
O
�
a
a
�
�
�
0
cC
a�
�
�
O
�
a�
U
�
a
a�i
c�.
�
U
o �j
�w
'� 0
��
o .�
Uv
�
.o
�
ca
�
c
R
�
�
�
T
c
�
U
vi
e
0
.�
�
.�
8
N
sR
E
s
E�
ix.+
a�
T
a
�
U
H
c
0
.�
�
.�
8
�
v
�
c
d
>
�
°:
.�+•
i=
�
0
U
a�i
�
3
O
�
C
O
w
a�
w
O
S �
�o
69 O.
�
�
a
�
a
..1
a ',
u �'
�
�
m
�
aa
�
a
(
'K .
x
�
�
V
�
�
�
�
Q
�
r
t
�
�
Q'
E�
�
x
�
�
3
c�
z
J
�
L=•i
�
d
F
W
�
z
0
a
5
z
w
0
�
�
A
z
�
�
b
d
�
�
a
�
w
�
C
�
Q
.;:
�
�
j
�
.>
Oyi
U
O
�
�
�
o�i
h
Ol
3
M.
�
0
�
�
�
�
�
w
QO
O
w
>
.�
L
.�
.�
�
�
0
z
�
M
N
00
�
O�
�a
U
M �
x �
O �
� �
O`'
U
a: v�
�
a
�
v
w
C
h
i.
O
C
�
>
�
�
� L
N y
a �
Z �
00 �
c 'v
'G e
c� �
a� oq
V '2
N
id �N
v� o.
L
0
..
�
�o
.�
�
O
�
.�
h
U
.�
O
r j
� �
� Qo�
h �
� ^
3p
N
N
N
�
C N
O ^'
�. �
. �
w ¢
�U
,� o
C G
�
O U
��
a
�
a�
�
.[
�
�
y
d
cc
bV.�l
C)
CY�
O
N
0
>
k
�O
8
i
�-
H
►r
U
�
�
�
�
F7�
U
Q
�
Local Guidelines for Lnplementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act l20041
General Provisions, Purpose and Policv
LOCAL GUIDELINES
FOR IMPLEMENTING THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(2006 REVISION) -
1. GENERAL PROVISIONS, PURPOSE AND POLICY
1.01 GENERAL PROVISIONS.
These Local Guidelines ("Guidelines") are to assist the City in implementing the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). These Guidelines are
consistent with the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA ("State Guidelines") which must
be followed by state and local agencies in California. These Guidelines have been adopted
pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21082.
1.02 P[1�oSE.
The purpose of these Local Guidelines is to help the City accomplish the following basic
objectives of CEQA:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(�
Internet, on a web site maintained or utilized by the public agency.
To enhance and provide long-term protection for the environment, while providing a
decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian.
To provide information to governmental decision-makers and the public regarding the
potential significant environmental effects of the proposed project.
To provide an analysis of the environmental effects of future actions associated with the
project to adequately apprise all interested parties of the true scope of the project for
intelligent weighing of the environmental consequences of the project.
To identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.
To prevent significant avoidable environmental damage through utilization of feasible
project alternatives or mitigation measures.
To disclose and demonstrate to the public the reasons why a governmental agency
approved the project in the manner chosen. Public participation is an essential part of the
CEQA process. Each public agency should encourage wide public involvement, formal
and informal, in order to receive and evaluate public reactions to environmental issues
related to a public agency's activities. Such involvement should include, whenever
possible, making environmental information available in electronic format on the
1.03 APPLICABILITY.
These Guidelines apply to any activity of the City which constitutes a"project" as
defined in Guidelines Section 10.45. An Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") is required for
each such project which may have a significant effect on the environment. When the City finds
that a project will have no significant environmental effect, a Negative Declaration or Mitigated
Negative Declaration rather than an EIlZ shall be prepared.
SACUTB�20061C1TY�22869.3 1- � OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (20061 General Provisions, puiDose a»d Policv
An EIR serves several functions for the benefit of the City and the public. An EIR (1) �
identifies and analyzes the significant environmental effects of a proposed project, (2) identifies
alternatives Eo the project, and (3) discloses possible ways to reduce or avoid potential
environmental damage. These matters are to be evaluated by the City before the project is
approved or disapproved.
The EIR is an informational document. It should not be used to rationalize approval of a
project. CEQA requires that decisions be informed and balanced. It must not be subverted into
an instrument for the oppression and delay of social economic, or recreational development or
advancement. Indications of adverse environmental impacts from the project which are
identifed in the EIR do not necessarily require disapprovat of a project. Rather, when an EIR
shows that a project would cause substantial adverse changes in the environment, the City must
respond to the information by one or more of the following methods:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
��
Changing the proposed project.
Imposing conditions on the approval of the project.
Adopting plans or ordinances to control a broader class of activities to avoid the
problems.
Choosing an alternative way of ineeting the same need.
Disapproving the project.
Finding that the unavoidable, signiiicant environmental damage is acceptable pursuant to
a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Although CEQA requires that major consideration be given to preventing environmental
damage, the City also has an obligation to balance other public objectives for each project
including economic and social factors.
1.04 REDUCING DELAY AND PAPERWORK.
The State Guidelines enconrage local governmental agencies to reduce delay and
paperwork by, among other things:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(�
Integrating the CEQA process into early planning review; to this end, the project
approval process and these procedures, to the maximum extent feasible, are to run
concurrently, not consecutively;
Identifying projects which iit within categorical or other exemptions and are therefore
exempt from CEQA processing;
Using initial studies to identify signi�cant environmental issues and to narrow the scope
of EIRs;
Using a Negative Declaration when a project not otherwise exempt will not have a
significant effect on the environment;
Consulting with state and local responsible agencies before and during the preparation of
an EIR so that the document will meet the needs of all the agencies which will use it;
Allowing applicants to revise projects to eliminate possible significant effects on the
environment, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a Negative Declaration rather
than an EIR;
SACUTB120061CITY\22869.3 1-2 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
L.ocal Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (20061
(g)
(h)
(i)
(i)
(k)
ii)
(m)
(n)
(o)
�P)
�9)
(r)
1.05
General Provisions. Puroose and Policv
Integrating ' CEQA requirements with other environmental review and consultation
requirements;
Emphasizing consultation be�ore an EIR is prepared, rather than submitting adverse
comments on a completed document;
Combining environmental documents with other documents, such as general plans;
Eliminating repetitive discussions of the same issues by using EIRs on programs, policies
or plans and tiering from statements of broad scope to those of narrower scope;
Reducing the length of EIRs by means such as setting appropriate page limits;
Preparing analytic, rather than encyclopedic EIRs;
Mentioning insignificant issues only briefly;
Writing EIRs in plain language;
Following a clear format for EIRs;
Emphasizing the portions of the EIR that are useful to decision-makers and the public and
reducing emphasis on background material;
Incorporating information by reference; and
Making co�unents on EIRs as specific as possible.
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.
These Guidelines are intended to implement the provisions of CEQA and the State
Guidelines, and the provisions of CEQA and the State Guidelines shall be fully complied with
even though they may not be set forth or referred to herein.
� 1.06 TERMINOLOGY.
The terms "must" or "shall" identify mandatory requirements. The term "may" is
permissive, with the particular decision being left to the discretion of the City. The term
"should" identi�es the guidance of the Ofiice of Planning and Research, which the City can
f�llow in the absence of countervailing considerations.
1.07 PARTIAL INVALIDITY.
In the event any part or provision of these Guidelines shall be determined to be invalid,
the remaining portions which can be separated from the invalid unenforceable provisions shall
continue in full force and effect.
1.08 ELECTRONIC DELIVERY OF COMMENTS AND NOTICES.
Individuals may file a written request to receive copies of public notices provided under
these GuideIines or the State Guidelines. The requestor may elect to receive these notices via
email rather than regular mail. Notices sent by email are deemed delivered when the staff person
sending the email sends it directed to the last email address provided by the requestor to the
public agency.
Individuals may also submit comments on the CEQA documentation for a project via
email. Comments submitted via email shall be treated as written comments for all purposes.
Comments sent to the public agency via email are deemed received when they actually arrive in
an email account of a staff person who has been designated or identified as the point of contact
SACVTB\2006\CITYL2869.3 1-3 OBest Best & Kriegcr LLP
Local Guidelines for Itnplementing ihe
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (2006)
for a particular project.
General ProvisionS, Pmvose a�d Policv.
SACV76�006\CITY\228693 1-4 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Loca] Guidetines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (2006)
( � 2. LEAD AND RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES
2.01 LEAD AGENCY PRINCIPLE.
Lead and Res�onsible AQencies
The City will be the Lead Agency if it will have principal responsibility for carrying out
or approving a project. Where a project is to be carried out or approved by more than one public
agency, only one agency shall be responsible for the preparation of environmental documents.
'This agency shall be called the Lead Agency.
2.02 SELECTION OF LEAD AGENCY. -
Where two or more public agencies will be involved with a project, the Lead Agency
shall be designated according to the following criteria:
(a) If the project will be carried out by a public agency, that agency shall be the Lead Agency
even if the project will be located within the jurisdiction of another public agency.
(b) If the project will be carried out by a nongovernmental person or entity, the Lead Agency
shall be the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising and approving
the project as a whole. The Lead Agency will norrnally be the agency with general
governmental powers, rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose. (For
example, a district which will provide a public service or utility to the project serves a
limited purpose.) If two or more agencies meet this criteria equally, the agency which
acts first on the project will be the Lead Agency.
� (c) If two or more public agencies have a substantial claim to be the Lead Agency under
, either (a) or (b), they may designate one agency as the Lead Agency by agreement. An
agreement may also provide for cooperative efforts by contract, joint exercise of powers,
or similar devices. If the agencies cannot agree which agency should be the Lead Agency
for preparing the environmental document, any of the disputing pubIic agencies or the
project applicant may submit the dispute to the Office of Planning and Research. Within
21 days of receiving the request, the Office of Planning and Research will designate the
lead agency.
2.03 DUTIES OF A LEAD AGENCY.
As a Lead Agency, the City shall decide whether a Negative Declaration, Mitigated
Negative Declaration or an EIR will be required for a project and shall prepare, or cause to be
prepared, and consider the document before making its decision on whether and how to approve
the project. The documents may be prepared by Staff or by private consultants pnrsuant to a
contract with the City. However, the City shall independently review and analyze all draft and
iinal EIRs or Negative Declarations prepared for a project and shall find that the EIR or Negative
Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City prior to approval of the document. If a
Draft EIR, Final EIR or Focused EIR is prepared under a contract to the City, the contract must
be executed within forty-five (45) days from the date on which the City sends a Notice of
Preparation. (See Guidelines Section 7.02.)
During the process of preparing an EIR, the City shall have the following duties:
SACUTB�2006\CITY\22869.3 2-1 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Unplementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (20061
L.ead and Resoons+ble Acencies
(a) Immediately� after deciding that an EIR is required for a project, the City shall send to the
Office of Planning and Research and each Responsible Agency a Notice of Preparation
(Form "G") stating that an EIl2 will be prepared. (See Guidelines Section 7.03.)
(b) The City shall prepare or cause to be prepared the Draft EIR for the project. (See
Guidelines Section 7.04.)
(c) Once the Draft EIR is completed, the City shall file a Notice of Completion (Form "H")
with the Office of Planning and Research. (See Guidelines Section 7.18.)
(d) The City shall consult with state, federal and local agencies which exercise authority over
resources which may be affected by the project for their comments on the completed
Draft EIR. (See Guidelines Section 7.21.) -
(e) The City shall provide public notice of the availability of a Draft EIR (Form "K") at the
same time that it sends a Notice of Completion to the Ofiice of Planning and Research.
(See Guidelines Section 7.18.)
( fl The City shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who
reviewed the Draft EIR and shall prepare or cause to be prepared a written response. A
written response must be provided to all commenting public agencies at least ten (10)
days prior to certifying an EIR. (See Guidelines Section 7.24.) _
(g) The City shall prepare or cause to be prepared a Final EIR before approving the project.
(See Guidelines Section 7.25.)
(h) The City shall certify that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA
and has been reviewed by the City Council. (See Guidelines Section 7.27.)
(i) T'he City shalI include in the Final EIR, the reply of any Responsible Agency to the
Notice of Prepazation or Draft EIR. (See Guidelines Sections 2.07, 7.24 and 7.25.)
As Lead Agency, the City may charge a non-elected body, such as the Planning
Department or Planning Commission, with the responsibility of adopting, certifying or
authorizing environmental documents; however, the City must have a procedure allowing for the
appeal of the CEQA decisions of any non-elected body to the City Council. Existing provisions
of the municipal code may be used to satisfy this requirement.
2.04 CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.
An applicant for a development project must submit a signed statement to the City stating
whether the project and any alternatives are located on a site which is included in any list
compiled by the Secretary for Environmental Protection of the California Environmental
Protection Agency ("California EPA") listing hazardous waste sites and other specified sites
located in the City. The applicant's statement must contain the following information:
(a) The applicant's name, address, and phone number.
(b) Address of site, and local agency (city/county).
(c) Assessor's book, page, and parcel number.
(d) The list which includes the site, identi�cation number, and date of list.
Before accepting as complete an application for any development project as deiined in
Guidelines Section 10.13, the City shall consult lists compiled by the Secretary for
Environmental Protection of the California EPA pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5
listing hazardous waste sites and other specified sites located in the City. The Ci[y shall notify
SACUTB�006\CITY\22A69.3 2-2 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the �
California Environmental Oualitv Act (20061 Lead and Resuonsible Aeencies
( an applicant for a development project if the project site is located on such a list and not already
identified. In the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration (see Guidelines Section 6.04) or the Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR (see
Guidelines Section 7.03}, the City shail specify the California EPA tist, if any, which includes
the project site, and shall provide the information contained in the applicant's statement.
This provision applies only to projects for which applications have not been deemed
complete on or before January 1, 1992.
2.05 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY PRINCIPLE.
Where a project is to be carried out or approved by more than one public agency, all
public agencies other than the Lead Agency which have discretionary approval power over the
project shall be called Responsible Agencies.
2.06 DUTIES OF A RESPONSIBLE AGENCY.
As a Responsible Agency, the City shall consider the environmental documents'prepared
or caused to be prepared by the Lead Agency and reach its own conclusions on whether and how
to approve the project involved. The City shall also both respond to consultation by the Lead
Agency and attend meetings as requested by the Lead Agency to assist the Lead Agency in
preparing adequate environmental documents. The City should also review and comment on
Draft EIRs and Negative Declarations. Comments shall be limited to those project activities
�, which are within the City's area of expertise or are required to be carried out or approved by the
City or are subject to the City's powers. As a Responsible Agency, the City may identify
significant environmental effects of a project for which mitigation is necessary. As a
Responsible Agency, the City may submit to the Lead Agency proposed mitigation measures
which would address those significant environmental effects. If mitigation measures are
required, the City shall submit to the Lead Agency complete and detailed performance objectives
for such mitigation measures which would address the significant environmental effects
identiiied, or refer the Lead Agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference
documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to the Lead Agency by the City shall be limited
to measures which mitigate impacts to resources that are within the City's authority. For private
projects, the City, as a Responsible Agency, may require the project proponent to provide such
information as may be required and to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by it in reporting
to the Lead Agency.
2.07 RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF PREPARATION BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES.
Within thirty (30) days of receipt of a Notice of Preparation of an EIR, the City, as a
Responsible Agency, shall specify to the Lead Agency the scope and content of the
environmental information related to the City's area of statutory responsibility in connection
with the proposed project. At a minimum, the response shall identify the significant
environmental issues and possible alternatives and mitigation which the City, as a Responsible
Agency, will need to have explored in the Draft EIlZ. Such information shall be speci�ed in
writing, shall be as specific as possible, and shall be communicated to the Lead Agency, by
certified mail or any other method of transmittal which provides it with a record that the notice
SACUTB�006\GTY\228693 �-3 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implernenting [he
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (20061 L.ead and Responsible A¢encies
was received, not later than thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice of the Lead Agency's
determination. The Lead Agency shall incorporate this information into the EIR.
2.OH USE OF FINAL EIR OR NEGATIVE DECLARATION BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES.
The City, as a Responsible Agency, shall consider the Lead Agency's Final EIR or
Negative Declaration before acting upon or approving a proposed project. The City shall
consider the adequacy of the prior environmental documents for its purposes and in certain
instances may require that a Subsequent EIR or a Supplemental EIR be prepared. Mitigation
measures and alternatives deemed feasible and relevant to the City's role irr carrying out the
project shall be adopted. Findings which are relevant to the City's responsibility shall be made.
A Notice of Determination shall be filed by the Responsible Agency, but need not state that the
Lead Agency's ETR or Negative Declaration complies with CEQA.
2.09 SHIFT IN LEAD AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES.
The City, �i�-a Responsible Agency, shall assume the role of the Lead Agency if any one
of the following three conditions is met: '
(a) The Lead Agency did not prepare any environmental documents for the project, and the
statute of limitations has expired for a challenge to the action of the appropriate Lead
Agency.
(b) The Lead Agency prepared environmental documents for the project, and all of the
following conditions occur:
(1) A Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is required;
(2) The Lead Agency has granted a final approval for the project; and
(3) The statute of limitations has expired for a challenge to the action of the
appropriate Lead Agency.
(c) The Lead Agency prepared inadequate environmental documents without providing
public notice of a Negative Declaration or sending Notice of Preparation of an EIR to
Responsible Agencies and the statute of limitations has expired for a challenge to the
action of the appropriate Lead Agency.
SACIJTB�0061CITY�228693 2,-4 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
L,ocal Guidelines for tmplementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (20061
i� � 3. ACTIVITIES EXEMP'I' FROM CEQA
3.01 Ac'rioNs SuaJECT To CEQA.
Activities Exemvt from CEOA
CEQA applies to discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public
agencies. If the proposed activity does not come within the definition of "project" contained in
Guidelines Section 10.45 it is exempt from CEQA review. -
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
"Project" does not include:
Proposals for legislation to be enacted by the State Legislature.
Continuing administrative or maintenance activities, such as purchases for supplies,
personnel-related actions, and general policy and procedure making (except as provided
in Guidelines Section 10.45).
The submittal of proposals to a vote of the people in response to a petition drive initiated
by voters, or the enactment of a qualified voter-sponsored initiative under California
Constitution Art. II, Section 11(a) and Election Code Section 9214.
The creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities
that do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may have a potentially
significant physical impact on the environment. Government funding mechanisms may
include, but are not limited to, assessment districts and community facilities districts.
Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or
indirect physical changes in the environment.
Activities that do not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change
in the environment.
3.02 MINISTERIAL PROJECTS.
A ministerial project is exempt from CEQA review. This is a project undertaken or
approved by the City upon a given set of facts, in a prescribed manner, and in obedience to
statute, ordinance, regulation or other legal mandate. A ministerial project is one in which the
City officer or employee has no discretionary power to exercise personal judgment or opinion as
to the method in which the project will be carried out. CEQA review would be irrelevant for a
ministerial project, because the City must act in a preordained way regardless of environmental
impacts. The decision whether a proposed project is ministerial in nature may involve or require,
to some extent, interpretation of the language of the legal mandate, and should be made on a
case-by-case basis. Ministerial projects include, but are not limited to:
(a)
(b)
(c)
�a>
(e)
(�
Issuance of business licenses;
Approval of final subdivision maps and final parcel maps;
Approval of individual utility service connections and disconnections;
Issuance of licenses;
Issuance of a permit to do street work;
Issuance of building permits where the City does not retain signi�cant discretionary
power to modify or shape the project.
SACUTB�2006\CITY�2869.3
3-1
OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Lnplementing the
Califomia Environmental Qual�tv Act {2Q06)
Activities Ex�mpt from CEQA,
(g) Where a project involves an approval that contains elements of both a ministerial and
discretionary nature, the project wiIl be deemed to be discretionary and subject to the
requirements of CEQA.
3.03 EXEMPTIONS IN GENERAL.
CEQA and the State Gaidelines exempt certain activities and provide_that local agencies
shall further identify and describe certain exemptions. The requirements of CEQA and the
obligation to prepare an EIR, Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration do not �
apply to the exempt activities which are set forth in CEQA, the State G�delines and this
Chapter. ,
3.04 PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT.
If, in the judgment of Staff, a proposed activity is exempt, Staff shouid so find on the
form entitled "Preliminaxy Exemption Assessment" (Form "A"}. The Preliminary Exemption
Assessment shall be-retained at City Hall as a public record.
3.05 NOTICE OF EXEMPTION.
After City approval of an exempt project, a"Notice of Exemption" (Form "B") may be
iiled by Staff with the Clerk. The Preliminary Exemption Assessment shall be attached to the
Notice of Exemption for filing. If filed, the Clerk must post the Notice within twenty-four (24)
hours of receipt, and the Notice must remain posted for thirty (30) days. Although no California
Department of Fish and Game ("DFG") filing fee is applicable to exempt projects, most Clerks
customarily charge a documentary handling fee to pay for record keeping on behalf of the DFG.
Refer to the Index in the Staff Summary to deternune if such a fee will be required for the
project.
The iiling of a Notice of Exemption is recommended because it starts a 35-day statute of
limitations on legal challenges to the City's determination that the project is exempt from CEQA.
The City is encouraged to make postings of all filed notices available in electronic format on the
Internet. These electronic postings are in addition to the procedures required by the State
Guidelines and the Public Resources Code. If a Notice of Exemption is not filed, a 180-day
statute of limitations will apply.
When a request is made for a copy of the Notice prior to the date on which the City
determines the project is exempt, the Notice must be mailed, first class postage prepaid, within
five (5) days of the City's determination. If such a request is made following the City's
determination, then the copy should be mailed in the same manner as soon as possible.
3.06 DISAPPROVED PROJECTS.
Projects which the City rejects or disapproves are exempt. An applicant shall not be
relieved of paying the costs for an EIR or Negative Declaration prepared for a project prior to the
City's disapproval of the project.
SACUTB�2006\C1TY\22869.3 3-2 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
L.ocal Guidelines for Lnplementing the
California Envimnmental Oualitv Act (20061
3.07 NO POSSIBILITY OF S1GNIFICANT EFFECT.
Activities Exempt fmm CEOA,
Where it can be seen with absolute certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in
question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is exempt.
3.08 EMERGENCY PROJECTS.
The following types of emergency projects are exempt: (The term "emergency" is
defined in Guidelines Section 10.16.)
(a) Work in a disaster-stricken area in which a state of emergency has been proclaimed by
the Governor pursuant to Section 8550 of the Government Code. This includes projects
that will remove, destroy, or significantly alter a historical resource when that resource
regresents an imminent threat to the public of bodily harm or of damage to adjacent
property or when the project has received a determination by the State Office of Historic
Preservation pursuant to Section 5028(b) of the Public Resources Code.
(b) Emergency repairs to publicly or privately owned service facilities necessary to maintain
service essential to the public health, safety or welfare. �
(c) Projects necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency. This dces not include long-term
projects undertaken for the purpose of preventing or mitigating a situation that has a low
probability of occurrence in the short-term.
(d) Projects undertaken, carried out, or approved by a public agency to maintain, repair, or
restore an existing highway damaged by fire, flood, storm, earthquake, land subsidence,
gradual earth movement, or landslide, provided that the project is within the existing right
oi way of that highway and is initiated within one year of the damage occurring. This
exemption does not apply to highways designated as official state scenic highways, nor to
any project undertaken, carried out, or approved by a public agency to expand or widen a
highway damaged by fire, flood, storm, earthquake, land subsidence, gradual earth
movement, or landslide.
(e) Seismic work on highways and bridges pursuant to Section 180.2 of the Streets and
Highways Code Section 180, et seq.
3.09 FEASIBILITY AND PLANNING STUDIES.
A project that involves only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions
which the City has not yet approved, adopted or funded is exempt.
3.10 RATES, TOLLS, FARES AND CHARGES.
The establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring or approval of rates, tolls,
fares or other charges by the City that the City finds are for one or more of the purposes listed
below are exempt.
(a) Meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe beneiits;
(b) Purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment or materials;
(c) Meeting financial reserve needs and requirements; or
(d) Obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service
areas.
SACUTB�2006\CITY\22869.3 3-3 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Oualitv Act (20061
Activities Exemqt from CEOA
(e) When the City determines that one of the aforementioned activities pertaining to rates,
tolls, fares or charges is exempt from the requirements of CEQA, it shall incorporate
written findings setting forth the specific basis for the claim of exemption in the record of
any proceeding in which such an exemption is claimed.
3.11 SUBSURFACE PIPELINFS WITHIN A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.
The installation of a new pipeline or the maintenance, repair, restoration, reconditioning,
relocation, replacement, removal or demolition of an existing subsurface pipeline is exempt
where the project is less than one mile in length and located within a public street, highway or
any other public right-of-way.
3.12 CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL HOUSING PROJECTS.
CEQA does not apply to the construction, conversion, or use of residential housing if the
project meets all of the general requirements described in Section A below and satisfies the
specific requirements for any one of the following three categories: (1) agriculiural housing
(Section B below), (2) affordable housing projects in urbanized areas (Section C below), or (3)
affordable housing projects near major transit stops (Section D beiow).
A. General Requirements. The construction, conversion, or use of residential
housing units affordable to low-income households (as defined in Section 10.29)
located on an iniill site in an urbanized area is exempt from CEQA if all of the
following general requirements are satisfied:
(1) The project is consistent with:
(a) any applicable general plan, specific plan, and local coastal
program, including any mitigation measures, as that plan or
pragram existed on ihe date that the application was deemed
complete, and
(b) any applicable zoning ordinance, as that zoning ordinance existed
on the date that the application was deemed complete. A project
may satisfy the zoning consistency requirement even if it proposes
rezoning of the project site as long as the proposec� zoning is
consistent with the applicable General Plan designation;
(2) Community level environmental review has been adopted or certified;
(3} The project and other projects approved prior to the approval of the project
can be adequately served by existing utilities, and the project applicant has
paid or committed to pay all applicable in-lieu or development fees;
(4) The project meets all of the following four criteria relating to biological
resources:
(a) The project site does not contain wetlands;
(b) The project site does not have any valae as a wildlife habitat;
SACV7'B120061C1TY�228693 3-4 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental puality Act (20Q6)
Activities Ezemot from CEQA
The project does not harm any species protected by the federal
Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Native Plant Protection Act,
or the California Endangered Species Act; and
The project dces not cause the destruction or removal of any
species protected by a local ordinance in effect at the time the
application for the project was deemed complete;
(c)
(d)
(5) The site is not included on any list of facilities and sites compiled pursuant
to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code;
(6) The project site is subject to a preliminary endangerment assessment
prepared by a registered environmental assessor to determine the existence
of any release of a hazardous substance on the site and to determine the
potential for exposnre of future occupants to signi�cant health hazards
from any nearby property or activity;
(a)
(7}
(8)
If a release of a hazardous substance is found to exist on the site,
the release shall be removed or any significant effects of the
release shall be mitigated to a level of insignificance in compliance
with state and federal requirements.
If a potential for exposure to significant hazards from surrounding
properties or activities is found to exist, the effects of the potential
exposure shall be mitigated to a level of insignificance in
compliance with state and federal requirements.
(b)
The project does not have a significant effect on historical resources;
The project site is not subject to any of the following potential hazards
except when mitigated as set forth below:
A wildland iire hazard, as determined by the Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection, unless the applicable general plan or
zoning ordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk of a
wildland fire hazard;
An unusually high risk of �re or explosion from materials stored or
used on nearby properties;
Risk of a public health exgosure at a level that would exceed the
standards established by any state or federal agency;
Within a delineated earthquake fault zone, as determined pursuant
to Section 2622 of the Public Resources Code, or a seismic hazard
zone, as determined pursuant to Section 2696 of the Public
Resources Code, unless the agplicable general plan or zoning
ordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk of an earthquake
fault or seismic hazard zone; or
Landslide hazard, flood plain, floodway, or restriction zone, unless
the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance contains provisions
to mitigate the risk of a]andslide or flood;
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
SACUTB\2006\CITY122869.3 3-5 OBest Best & Krieger L.LP
Loca! Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Fnv'vonmental Oualiri Act (2006) Activiti�.s Exempt from CEQA
(9) � The project site is not located on developed open space;
(10) The project site is not located within the boundaries of a state
conservancy; and
(11) The project meets the requirements in either Section 21159.22, 21159.23
or 21159.24 of the Public Resources Code. _
B. Specific Requirements for Agricultural Housing (Public Resources Code Section
21159.22.) CEQA does not apply to the construction, conversion, or use of
residential housing for agricultural employees that meets all of the general
requirements described above in Section A and meets the following additional
criteria:
(1) The project either:
-- (a) is affordable to lower income households, lacks public fnancial
assistance, and the developer has provided sufficient legal
commitments to ensure the continued availability and use of the
housing units for lower income households for a period of at least
fifteen ( l5) years; or
(b) provides housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income
households, public financial assistance exists for the development
project, and the developer of the project has provided sufficient
legal commitments to the appropriate local agency to ensure the
continued availability and use of the housing units for low- and
moderate-income households for a period of at least fifteen (15)
years;
(2} The project site is adjacent on at least two sides to land that has been
developed and the project consists of not more than forty-five (45) units or
provides dornutories, barracks, or other group-living facilities for a total of
forty-fve (45) or fewer agricultural employees, and either:
(a} The project site is within incorporated City limits or within a
census-defined place with a minimum population density of at
least five thousand (5,000) persons per square mile; or
(b) The project site is within incorporated City limits or within a
census- defined place and the minimum population density of the
City or the census-defined place is at least one thousand (1,000)
persons per square mile, unless the City determines that there is a
reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant
effect on the environment or that the cumulative effects of
successive projects of the same type in the same area would, over
time, be significant;
(3) If the project is located on a site zoned for general agricultural use, it must
consist of twenty (20) or fewer units, or, if the housing consists of
SACUTB�20061CfiYL2869.3 3-6 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
I.oca! Guidelines for'hnplementing the
Califomia Envimnmental Oualitv Act (2006)
Activities Exempt from CEOA
dormitories, barracks, or other group-living facilities, the project must not
provide hoasing for more than twenty (20) agricultural employees; and
(4} The project is not more than two (2) acres in area if the project site is
located in an area with a popUlation density of at least one thousand
(1,000) persons per square mile, and is not more than five (5) acres in area
for all other project sites. -
C. Specific Reguirements for Affordable Housing Projects in Urbanized Areas
(Public Resources Code Section 21159.23.) CEQA dces �ot apply to any
development project that consists of the construction, conversion, or use of
residential housing consisting of one hundred (100) or fewer units that are
affordable to low-income households if all of the general requirements described
in Section A above are satisfied and the following additional criteria are aIso met:
(1) T'he developer of the project provides sufficient legal commitments to the
local agency to ensure the continued availability and use of the housing
units for lower income households for a period of at least thirty (30) years;
,
;
(2)
(3)
(4)
SANTB12006\CITY�22869.3
The project site:
(a) has been previously developed for qualified urban uses;
(b) is immediately adjacent to parcels that are developed with
qualified urban uses; or
(c) at least 75% of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are
developed with qualified urban uses and the remaining 25% of the
perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that have previously been
developed for qualified urban uses, the site has not been developed
for urban uses and no parcel within the site has been created within
ten (10} years prior to the proposed development of the site;
The project site is not more than iive (5) acres in area; and
The project site is located:
(a)
(b}
(c}
within an urbanized area or within a census-defined place with a
population density of at least five thousand (5,000) persons per
square mile,
if the project consists of fifty (50) or fewer units, within an
incorporated city with a population density of at least twenty-five
hundred (2,500) persons per square mile and a total population of
at least twenty-five thousand (25,000) persons, or
within either an incorporated city or a censas-de�ned place with a
popuiation density of one thousand (1,000) persons per square
mile, unless there is a reasonable possibility that the project would
have a significant effect on the enviranment due to unusual
circumstances or due to the related or cumulative impacts of
reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the project.
3-7 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (2006)
Activities Exemut from CEOA
D. Specific Requirements for Affordable Housing Projects Near Major Transit Stops
(Public Resources Code Section 21159.24.) CEQA dces not apply to a residential
project on an iniill site within an urbanized area if all of the general requirements
described above in Section A are satisfied and the following additional criteria are
also met:
(1} Within five (5) years prior to the date that the application for the project is
deemed complete, community-level environmental review was certified or
adopted. This exemption does not apply, however, if new information
about the project or substantial changes regarding tfie circumstances
surrounding the project become available after the community-level
environmental review was certified or adopted;
(2) The site is not more than four (4) acres in total area;
(3) The project does not contain more than one hundred (100) residential
���- units;
(4)
(5)
(6)
(�)
(g)
The project meets either of the following criteria:
At least 10% of the housing is sold to families of moderate income
or rented to families of low income or at least 5% of the housing is
rented to families of very low income, and the project developer
has provided the City with sufficient legal commitments to ensure
the continued availability and use of the housing units for very
low, low-, and moderate-income households at monthly housing
costs; or
T'he project developer has paid or will pay in-lieu fees sufficient to
pay for the development of the same number of units that would
otherwise be sold or rented to families of moderate or very low
income pursuant to subparagraph (a);
(a)
(b)
The project is within one-half mile of a major transit stop;
The project does not include any single-level building that exceeds
100,000 square feet; and
The project promotes higher density infill housing.
(a) A project with a density of at least 20 units per acre shall be
conclusively presumed to promote higher density infill housing.
(b) A project with a density of at least 10 units per acre and a density
greater than the average density of the residential properties within
1,500 feet shall be presumed to promote higher density housing
unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates otherwise.
Exception.
SACUTB\2006\CITY�2869.3 �-8 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
L.ocal Guidelines for lmplementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (20061
Activities Exempt from CEOA
( �(a) The Exemption for Affordable Housing Projects near Major
Transit Stops does not apply if any one of the following criteria is
met:
l. There is a reasonable possibility that the project will have a
project-specific, significant effect on the environment due
to unusual circumstances; -
2. Since community-level environmental review was certified
or adopted, substantial changes have occurred with respect
to the circumstances under which the project is being
undertaken, and those changes are related to the project; or
3. Since community-level environmental review was certified
or adopted, new information regarding the circumstances
under which the project is being undertaken has become
available, and that new information is related to the project
..__ and was not known and could not have been known at the
time of the community-level environmental review.
(b) If a project satisfies any one of the three criteria described above in
Section D.(8)(a), the environmental effects of the project must be
analyzed in an environmental impact report or a negative
declaration. The environmental analysis shall be limited to the
effects identified pursuant to Section D(8)(a).
E. Whenever the Lead Agency determines that a project is exempt from
environmental review based on Public Resources Code section 21159.22 [Section
3.12 B of these Guidelines], 21159.23 [Section 3.12 C of these Guidelines], or
21159.24 [Section 3.12 D of these Guidelines], staff and/or the proponent of the
project shall fle notice of the determination of exemption with the Office of
Planning and Research within five working days after the approval of the project.
3.13 MINOR ALTERATIONS TO FLUORIDATE WATER UTILITIES.
Minor alterations to water utilities made for the purpose of complying with the
fluoridation requirements of Health and Safety Code Sections 4026.7 and 4026.8 or regulations
adopted thereunder are exempt.
3.14 BALLOT MEASURES.
The definition of project in the State Guidelines speci�cally excludes the submittal of
proposals to a vote of the people of the state or of a particular community. This exception
applies only to measures proposed in response to a petition drive initiated by voters. When a
governing body makes a decision to put a measure on the ballot, that decision may be
discretionary and therefore subject to CEQA. In contrast, the enactment of a qualified voter-
sponsored initiative under California Constitution Art. II, Section 11{a) and Election Code
Section 9214 is not a project and therefore is not subject to CEQA review. (See Guidelines
Section 3.01.)
SACUTB120W1CITY\228693 3-9 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
L,ocal Guidelines for Ifnplernenting the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (20061
3.15 UTHER SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS.
Activities Exempt from CEOA
CEQA and the State Guidelines exempt many other specific activities, including early
activities related to thermal power plants, ongoing projects, iransportation improvement
programs, family day care homes, congestion management programs, railroad grade separation
projects, restriping of streets or highways to relieve traffic congestion, and hazardous or volatile
liquid pipelines. Specific statutory exemptions are listed in the Public Resources Code,
including Sections 21080 through 21080.33, and in the State Guidelines, including Sections
15260 through 15285.
3.16 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS.
The State Guidelines establish certain classes of categorical exemptions. These apply to
classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the
environment and which, therefore, are exempt. Compliance with the requirements of CEQA or
the preparation of environmental documents for any project which comes within one of these
classes of categorical exemptions is not required. The classes of projects are briefly summarized
below. (Reference to the State Guidelines for the full description of each exemption is
recommended.)
The exemptions of Classes 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 below are qualified in that such projects must
be considered in light of the location of the project. A project that is ordinarily insignificant in
its impact on the environment may, in a particularly sensitive environment, be significant.
Therefore, these ciasses are considered to apply in all instances except where the project may
impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern which is designated,
precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state or local agencies.
All classes of categorical exemptions aze qualified. These exemptions are inagplicable
when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time
is significant or when there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant
effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
With the foregoing limitations in mind, the following classes of activity are generally
exempt:
Class 1: Existin� Facilities. Activities involving the operation, repair, maintenance,
permitting, leasing, licensing, minor alteration of, or legislative activities to regulate, existing
public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or other property, or topographical
features, provided the activity involves negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at
the time of the City's determination. The types of "existing facilities" itemized in Class 1 are not
intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key
consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use.
(State Guidelines Section I5301.)
Class 2: Renlacement or Reconstruction. Replacement or reconstruction of existing
facilities, structures, or other property where the new facility or structure will be located on the
same site as the replaced or reconstructed facility or structure and will have substantially the
same purpose and capacity as the replaced or reconstructed facility or structure. (State
SACUTB12006\CITY122869.3 3-1 � OBest Best & Krieger LLP
L.ocal Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (.20061
Guidelines Section��5302.)
Activities Exemnt from GEOA
Class 3: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Construction of limited
numbers of small new facilities or structures; installation of small new equigment or facilities in
small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another, when
only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. This exemption includes
structures built for both residential and commercial uses. (The maximum �umber of structures
allowable under this exemption is set forth in State Guidelines Section 15303.)
Class 4: Minor Alterations to Land. Minor alterations in the condition of land, water,
and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees, except for
forestry or agricultural purposes. (State Guidelines Section 15304.)
Class S: Minor Aiterations in Land Use Limitations. Minor alterations in land use
limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20°Io which do not result in any changes in
land use or density. (State Guidelines Section 15305.)
Class 6: Information Collection. Basic data collection, research, experimental
management, and resource evaluation activities which do not resu2t in a serious or major
disturbance to an environmental resource. (State Guidelines Section 15306.)
Class 7: Actions bv Re�ulatory A�encies for Protection of Natural Resources. Actions
taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to assure the
maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process
involves procedures for protection of the environment. (State Guidelines Section 15307.)
Class 8: Actions Bv Re�uiatory A�encies for Protection of the Environment. Actions
taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the
maintenance, restoration, enhancement or protection of the environment where the regulatory
process involves procedures for protection of the environment. (State Guidelines Section
15308.)
Class 9: Insnection. Inspection activities, including, but not limited to, inquiries into the
performance of an operation and examinations of the quality, health or safety of a project. (State
Guidelines Section 15309.)
Class 10: Loans. Loans made by the Department of Veteran Affairs under the Veterans
Farm and Home Purchase Act of 1943, mortgages for the purchase of existing structures where
the loan will not be used for new construction and the purchase of such mortgages by financial
institutions. (State Guidelines Section 15310.)
Class 11: Accessory Structures. Construction or replacement of minor structures
accessory or appurtenant to existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities, including,
but not limited to, on-premise signs; small parking lots; and placement of seasonal or temporary
use items, such as lifeguard towers, mobile food units, portable restrooms or similar items in
generally the same locations from time to time in publicly owned parks, stadiums or other
facilities designed for pubJic use. (State Guidelines Section 1531 l.)
SACUT6�006\CITY\22869.3 3-11 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Quality Act (20Q4) Activities Exempt from GEOA
Class 12: S�urplus Government Prouertv Sales. Sales of surplus government property,
except for certain parcels of land located in an area of statewide, regional or areawide concern as
that term is defined in State Guidelines Section 15206(b)(4). However, even if the surplus
property to be sold is located in any of those areas, its sale is exempt if:
(a) The property does not have significant values for wildlife or other environmental
purposes, and -
(b) Any one of the following three conditions is met:
(1) The property is of such size, shape, or inaccessibility thaE it is incapable of
independent development or use;
(2) The property to be sold would qualify for an exemption under any other
class of categorical exemption in the State Guidelines; or
(3) The use of the property and adjacent property has not changed since the
-�- time of purchase by the public agency. (State Guidelines Section 15312.)
Class 13: Acquisition of Lands for Wildlife Conservation Purooses. Acquisition of lands
for iish and wildlife conservation purposes, including preservation of fish and wildlife habitat,
establishment of ecological preserves under Fish and Game Code Section 1580, and preservation
of access to public lands and waters where the purpose of the acquisition is to preserve the land
in its natural condition. (State Guidelines Section 15313.)
Class 14: Minor Additions to Schools. Minor additions to existing schools within
existing school grounds where the addition dces not increase original student capacity by more
than 25°l0 or ten (10) classrooms, whichever is less. The addition of portable classrooms is
included in this exemption. (State Guidelines Section 15314.)
Class 15: Minor Land Divisions. Division(s) of property in urbanized areas zoned for
residential, commercial or industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in
conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all
services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not
involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous two (2) years, and the parcel does not
have an average slope greater than 20%. (State Guidelines Section 15315.)
Class 16: Transfer of Ownershin of Land in Order to Create Parks. Acquisition, sale, or
other transfer of land in order to establish a park where the land is in a natural condition or
contains historical or archaeological resources and either:
(a) The management plan for the park has not been prepared, or
(b) The management plan proposes to keep the area in a natural condition or preserve the
historic or archaeological resources.
CEQA will apply when a management plan is proposed that will chanae the area from its
natural condition or cause substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic or
archaeological resource. (State Guidelines Section 15316.)
SACUTB�2006\CITYt?28693 3-� 2 OBest Best & Krirger LLP
Local Guidelines for7mplementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (2006) Activities Exempt from �EQA
j Class 17: Ouen Space Contracts or Easements. Establishment of agricultural preserves,
making and renewing of open space contracts under the Williamson Act or acceptance of
easements or fee interests in order to maintain the open space character of the area. (The
cancellation of such preserves, contracts, interests or easements is not included in this
exemption.) (State Guidelines Section 15317.)
i
.
Class 18: Desi�nation of Wilderness Areas. Designation of wilderness areas under the
California Wildemess System. (State Guidelines Section 15318.)
Class 19: Annexations of Existin� Facilities and Lots for Exempt Facilities.
Annexations:
(a) to a city or special district of areas containing existing public or private structures
developed to the density allowed by the current zoning or prezoning of either the gaining
or losing governmental agency, whichever is more restrictive; provided, however, that the
extension of utility services to the existing facilities would have a capacity to serve only
the existing facilities; and
(b) of individual small parcels of the minimum size for facilities exempted by Class 3, New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. (State Guidelines Section 15319.)
Class 20: Changes in Or�anization of Local AQencies. Changes in the organization of
local governmental agencies where the changes do not change the geographical area in which
previously existing powers are exercised. Examples include but aze not limited to:
(a) Establishment of a subsidiary district;
(b) Consolidation of two or more districts having identical powers;
(c) Merger with a city of a district lying entirely within the boundaries of the city.
(State Guidelines Section 15320.)
Class 21: Enforcement Actions bv Re�ulatory A�encies. Actions by the City to enforce
or revoke a lease, permit, license, certificate or other entit�ement for use issned, adopted or
prescribed by the City or a law, general rule, standard or objective administered or adopted by
the City; or law enforcement activities by peace officers acting under any law that provides a
criminal sanction. (Construction activities undertaken by the City taking the enforcement or
revocation action are not included in this exemption.) (State Guidelines Section 15321.)
Class 22: Educational or Trainin� Pro�rams Involvin� No Phvsical ChanQes. The
adoption, alteration or termination of educationa] or training programs which involve no physical
alteration in the area affected or which involve physical changes only in the interior of existing
school or training structures. Examples include but are not limited to:
(a) Development of or changes in cuniculum or training methods.
(b) Changes in the trade structure in a school which do not result in changes in student
transportation.
(State Guidelines Section 15322.)
SACUTBL�6\C1TY�2869.3 3-13 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (20061 Activities Exemnt from CEOA,
Class 23: Normal Overations of Facilities for Public GatherinQs. Continued or repeated
normal operations of existing facilities for public gatherings for which the facilities were
designed, where there is past history, of at least three years, of the facility being used for the
same or similar purposes. Facilities included within this exemption include, but are not limited
to race tracks, stadiums, convention centers, auditoriums, amphitheaters, planetariums,
swimming pools and amusement parks. (State Guidelines Section 15323.)
Class 24: ReQulation of Working Conditions. Actions taken by the City to regulate
employee wages, hours of work or working conditions where there will be no demonstrable
physical changes outside the place of work. (State Guidelines Section 15324.) -
Class 25: Transfers of Ownershin of Interest in Land to Preserve ExistinQ Natural
Conditions and Historical Resources. Transfers of ownership of interest in land in order to
preserve open space, habitat, or historical resources. Examples include, but are not limited to,
acquisition, sale, or other transfer of areas to: preserve existing natural conditions, including
plant or animal habitats; allow continued agricultural use of the areas; allow restoration of
natural conditions; preserve open space or lands for natural park purposes; or prevent
encroachment of development into floodplains. This exemption dces not apply� to the
development of parks or park uses. (State Guidelines Section 15325.)
Class 26: AcQuisition of Housin� for Housin� Assistance ProQrams. Actions by a
redevelopment agency, housing authority or other public agency to implement an adopted
Housing Assistance Plan by acquiring an interest in housing units, provided the housing units are
either in existence or possessing all required pernuts for construction when the agency makes its
final decision to acquire the units. (State Guidelines Section 15326.)
Class 27: LeasinQ New Facilities. Leasing of a newly constructed or previously
unoccupied privately owned facility by a local or state agency when the City determines that the
proposed use of the facility:
(1) conforms with existing state plans and policies and with general,
community, and specific plans for which an EIR or Negative Declaration
has been prepared;
(2) is substantially the same as that originally proposed at the time the
building permit was issued;
(3) does not result in a trafiic increase of greater than 10°l0 of front access
road capacity; and
(4) includes the provision of adeyuate employee and visitor parking facilities.
(State Guidelines Section 15327.)
Class 28: Small Hvdroelectric Proiects as Existin� Facilities. Installation of certain
small hydroelectric-generating facilities in connection with existing dams, canals and pipelines,
subject to the conditions in State Guidelines Section 15328. (State Guidelines Section 15328.)
Class 29: Cooeneration Proiects at Existin� Facilities. Installation of cogeneration
equipment with a capacity of 50 megawatts or less at existing facilities meeting certain
conditions listed in State Guidelines Section 15329. (State Guidelines Section 15329.)
SACV7'B12006\CITY\22869.3 3-14 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Unplementing the
Califomia Fnvironmentai Oualiry Act {2q06)
AGtivities Exempt from CEOA
� Class 30: �Minor Actions to Prevent, Minimize, Stabilize, Mitinate or Eliminate the
Release or Threat of Release of Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Substances. Any minor cleanup
actions taken to prevent, minimize, stabilize, mitigate, or eliminate the release or threat of release
of a hazardous waste or substance which are small or medium removal actions costing $1
million or less. (State Guidelines Section 15330.}
(a) No cleanup action shall be subject to this Class 30 exemption if the action requires the
onsite use of a hazardous waste incinerator or thermal treatment unit or the relocation of
residences or businesses, or the action involves the potential release into the air of
volatile organic compounds as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 25123.6,
except for small scale in situ soil vapor extraction and treatment systems which have been
permitted by the local Air Pollution Control District or Air Quality Management District.
All actions must be consistent with applicable state and local environmental permitting
requirements including, but not limited to, off-site disposal, air quality rules such as those
governing volatile organic compounds and water quality standards, and approved by the
regulator�r_1�9dy with jurisdiction over the site.
(b) Examples of such minor cleanup actions include bnt are not limited to: .
(1) Removal of sealed, non-leaking drums of hazardous waste or substances
that have been stabilized, containerized and are designated for a lawfully
pernutted destination;
(2) Maintenance or stabilization of berms, dikes, or surface impoundments;
(3) Construction or maintenance or interim of temporary surface caps;
(4) Onsite treatment of contaminated soils or sludges provided treatment
system meets Title 22 requirements and local air district requirements;
(5) Excavation and/or offsite disposal of contaminated soils or sludges in
regulated units;
(6) Application of dust suppressants or dist binders to surface soils;
(7) Controls for surface water run-on and run-off that meets seismic safety
standards;
(8) Pumping of leaking ponds into an enclosed container;
(9) Construction of interim or emergency ground water treatment systems;
(10) Posting of warning signs and fencing for a hazardous waste or substance
site that meets legal requirements for protection of wildlife.
Class 31: Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation. Maintenance, repairs,
stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation, or reconstruction of historical
resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and
SACUTB�2006\Cl"fY�228693 3- I S OSest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia F�►virw�mental Quality Act (2QQ6)
Activities Exemp� fro�rr� CEQA
Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer. (State Guidelines Section
15331.)
Class 32: Infill Develovment Proiects. Infill development meeting the following
conditions:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designatioxi and all applicable
general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations;
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five
acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; -
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species;
(d) Approval of the project wouid not result in any significant effects relating to traffic,
noise, air quality, or water quality; and
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. (State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15332.)
Class 33: �Smalt Habitat Restoration Praiects. Revegetation of disturbed areas with
native plant species; wetland restoration, the primary purpase of which is to improve conditions
for waterfowl or other species that rely on wetland habitat; stream or river bank revegetation, the
primary purpose of which is to improve habitat for amphibians or native fish; projects to restore
or enhance habitat that are carried out principally with hand labor and not mechanized
equipment; stream or river bank stabilization with native vegetation or other bioengineering
techniques, the primary purpose of which is to reduce or eliminate erosion and sedimentation;
culvert replacement conducted in accordance with published guidelines of the Department of
Fish and Game or NOAA Fisheries, the primary purpose of which is to improve habitat or reduce
sedimentation, and other similar projects to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or
protection of habitat for fish, plants, or wildlife. This exemption only applies to project that are
five acres or less in size and that meet the following criteria:
(a) There would be no significant adverse impact on endangered, rare or threatened species
or their habitat pursuant to Section 15065 of the State Guideiines;
(b) There are no hazardous materials at or around the project site that may be disturbed or
removed; and
(c) The project will not result in impacts that are significant when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.
SACUTB�20061CITY�2869.3 3-16 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Ouality Act {20p6)
4. TIME LIMITATIONS
4.01 REVIEW OF PRIVATE PROJECT APPLICATIONS.
Time Limitations
Staff shall determine whether the application for a private project is complete within
thirty (30) days of receipt of the application. No application may be deemed incomplete for lack
of a waiver of the time limitations in Guidelines Sections 4.03 and 4:04. Accepting an
application as complete does not limit the authority of the City, acting as the Lead Agency, to
reyuire the applicant to submit additional infarmation needed for environmental evaluation of the
project. Requiring such additional information after the application is comple[e does not change
the status of the application.
4.02 DETERMiNATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
Except as provided in Guidelines Sections 4.05 and 4.06, Staffs initial determination as
to whether a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or an E1R should be prepared
shall be made within thirty (30) days from the date on which an application for a project is
accepted as complete by the City. This period may be extended fifteen (15) days with consent of
the applicant and the City.
4.03 COMPLETION AND ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
For private projects involving the issuance of a Iease, permit, license, certifcate, or other
entitlement for use by one or more public agencies, the Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative
Declaration shall be completed and approved within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date
when the City accepted the application as complete. Completion of a Negative
Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration within the 180-day period shall include completion
of the Initial Study, public review and the preparation of documents for approval by the decision-
making body, either the Planning Commission or City Council (see definition in Guidelines
Section 10.11).
In the event that compelling circumstances justify additional time and the project
applicant consents thereto, Staff may provide for a reasonable extension of the time limit for
completing and adopting the Negative Declazation/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
4.04 COMPLETION AND CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR.
For private projects, the Final EIR shall be completed and certified by the City Council
within one year after the date when the City accepted the application as complete. In the event
that compelling circumstances justify additionat time, the City Council may provide a one-time
extension up to ninety (90) days for completing and adopting the EIR, upon consent of the City
and the project applicant.
4.05 PROJECTS SUBJECT TO THE PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT.
The Permit Streamlining Act requires agencies to make decisions on certain development
project approvals within specified time limits. If a project is subject to the Act, the City cannat
require the project applicant to submit the informational equivalent of an EIR or prove
SACUTB\2IX}61CITY\228693 4-] uBest Best & Krieger LLP
L.ocal Guidelines for Implementing the
California Fnvironmental Qualiry Act (2006) Time L;�mitations
compliance with CEQA as a prerequisite to determining whether the project application is
complete. In addition, if requested by the project applicant, the City must begin processing the
project application prior to final CEQA action, provided the information necessary to begin the
process is available.
Under the Permit Streamlining Act, the City as Lead Agency must approve or disapprove
the development project application within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date on
which it certiiies the EIR, or ninety (90) days if an extension for completing and certifying the
EIR is granted (see Guidelines Section 4.04). If the City adopts a Negative
Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration, or deternunes the development project is exempt
from CEQA, it shall approve or disapprove the project application within sixty (60) days from
the date on which it adopts the Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration or
deternunes that the project is exempt from CEQA.
Except for waivers of the time periods for preparing a joint Environmental Impact
ReportlEnvironmental Impact Statement (as outlined in Government Code Sections 65951 and
65957), the City caiinot require a waiver of the time limits specified in the Permit Streamlining
Act as a condition of accepting or processing a development project application. In addition, the
City cannot disapprove a development project application in order to comply with the time limits
specifed in the Permit Streamlining Act.
4.Q6 PROJECTS, OTHER THAN THOSE SUBJECT TO THE PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT, WITH
SHORT TIME PERIODS FOR APPROVAL.
A few statutes require agencies to make decisions on project applications within time
limits that are so short that review of the project under CEQA would be difficult. To enable the
City as Lead Agency to comply with both the enabling statute and CEQA, the City shall deem a
project application as not received for filing under the enabling statute until such time as the
environmental documentation required by CEQA is complete. This section applies where all of
the foIlowing conditions are met:
(a) The enabling statute for a program, other than development projects under Chapter 4.5
(commencing with Section 65920) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code,
requires the City to take action on an application within a specified period of time of six
(6) months or less;
(b) The enabling statute provides that the project is approved by operation of law if the City
fails to take any action within the specifed time period; and
(c) The project application involves the City's issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate
or other entitlement for use.
In any case, the environmental document shall be completed or certiiied and the decision
on the application shall be made within the period established by the Permit Streamlining Act
(Government Code Sections 65920, et seq.).
4.07 SUSPENSION OF TIME PERIODS.
An unreasonable delay by an applicant in meeting City requests necessary for the
preparation of a Negative Declaration or an EIR shall suspend the running of the time periods
SACU?B120061CITY�28693 4-2. ORest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for bnplementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (2006)
Time Limitatio�s
described in Guidelines Sections 4.03 and 4.04 for the period of the unreasonable delay.
Alternatively, the City may disapprove a project appiication where there is unreasonable deIay in
meeting requests. The City may also allow a renewed application to start at the same point in the
process where the application was when it was disapproved.
SACUTB�20061CITY122869.3 4-3 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Ouaiitv Act (2006)
5. INITIAL STUDY
5.01 PREPARATION OF INITIAL STUDY.
[nitial Smdy
If the City deternunes that it is the Lead Agency for a project which is not exempt, the
City shall prepare an Initial Study to ascertain whether the project may have a substantial adverse
effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or
beneiicial. All phases of project planning, implementation and operation must be considered in
the Initial Study. An Initial Study may rely on expert opinion supported by facts, technica!
studies or other substantial evidence. However, an Initial Study is neither intended nor required
to include the level of detail included in an ETR.
(a) For City projects, the Initial Study shall be prepared by Staff or by private experts
pursuant to contract with the City.
(b) For private projects, the person or entity proposing to carry out the project shall submit
all data and information as may be required by the City to determine whether the
proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. All costs incuned by
the City in reviewing the data and inforination submitted, or in conducting� its own
investigation based upon such data and information, or in preparing an Initial Study for
the project shall be borne by the person or entity proposing to carry out the project.
S.O2 INFORMAL CONSULTATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES.
When more than one public agency will be involved in undertaking or approving a
project, the City as Lead Agency shall consult with all Responsible and any Trustee Agencies.
Such consultation shall be undertaken as part of the Initial Study process prior to determining
whether an EIR, Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration is required for the
project.
This early consultation, which may be done quickly and informally, is designed to insure
that the EIR, Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration will reflect the concerns of
all Responsible Agencies that will issue approvals for the project and all Trustee Agencies
responsible for natural resources affected by the project. It may include consultation with other
individuals or organizations with an interest in the project. The Office of Planning and Research,
upon request of the City or a private project applicant, shall assist in identifying the various
Responsible Agencies for a proposed project and ensure that the Responsible Agencies are
notiiied regarding any early consultation. In the case of a project undertaken by a public agency,
the Offce of Planning and Research, upon request of the City, shall ensure that any Responsible
Agency or public agency that has jurisdiction by law with respect to the project is notified
regarding any early consultation.
If, during the early consultation process it is determined that the project will clearly have
a significant effect on the environment, the City may immediately dispense with the Initial Study
and determine that an EIR is required.
5.03 CONSULTATION WITH PRIVATE PROJECT APPLICANT.
During or immediately after preparation of an Initial Study for a private project, the City
SACVTB\2006\CITY122869.3 $-1 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental OualitY Act (2006)
Initial Studv
may consult with the applicant to determine if the applicant is willing to modify the project to
reduce or avoid the significant effects identified in the Initial Study. If the project can be revised
to avoid or mitigate effects to a level of insignificance and there is no substantial evidence before
the City that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment, the City
may prepare and adopt a Negative Declaration. If any significant effect may still occur despiEe
alterations of the project, an EIR must be prepared.
5.04 AN INITIAL STUDY.
The Initial Study shall be used to determine whether a Negative Declaration, Mitigated
Negative Declaration or an EIR shall be prepared for a project. It provides written
documentation of whether the City found evidence of significant adverse impacts which might
occur. The purposes of an Initial Study are to:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
��
(g)
Identify environmental impacts;
Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts
before an ETR is written;
Focus an EIR, if one is required, on potentially significant environmental effects; �
Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project;
Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that
a project will not have a significant effect on the environment;
Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and
Determine whether a previously prepared ElR could be used for the project.
5.05 CONTENTS OF INITIAL STUDY.
ia)
��)
(c)
(d)
(e)
i�
(g)
(h)
An Initial Study shall contain in brief form:
A description of the project, including the location of the project. The project descriptian
must be consistent throughout the environmental review process;
An identification of the environmental setting;
An identiiication of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method
provided that entries are briefly explained to show the evidence sapporting the entries.
The brief explanation may be through either a narrative or a reference to other
information such as attached maps, photographs, or an earlier EIR or Negative
Declaration. A reference to another document should include, if possible, a citation to
the page or pages where the information is found;
A discussion of ways to mitigate any significant effects identified;
An examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning and local land
use plans;
T'he name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the Initia! Study;
A summary of any comments regarding the project received from Responsible Agencies,
Trustee Agencies or other persons; and
Identification of prior EIRs or environmental documents which could be used with the
project.
SACUT612006\CITY132869.3 5-2 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (20061
Inirial Studv
(� 5.06 USE OF A CHECKLIST INITIAL STUDY.
When properly completed, the Environmental Checklist (Form "J") will meet the
requirements of Guidelines Section 5.05 provided that the entries on the checklist aze explained.
Either the Environmental Checklist (Form "J") should be expanded or a separate attachment
should be prepared to describe the project, including its location, and to identify the
environmental setting. -
California courts have rejected the use of a bare, unsupplemented Initial Study checklist.
An Initial Study must contain more than mere conclusions. It must disclose supporting data or
evidence upon which the City relied in conducting the Study. The City shall augment checklists
with supporting factual data and reference information sources when completing the forms.
Explanation of all "potential impact" answers should be provided on attached sheets. For
controversial projects, it is advisable to state briefly why "no" answers were checked. If
practicable, attach a list of reference materials, such as prior EIRs, plans, traffic studies, air
quality data, or other supporting studies.
5.07 EVALUATING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.
In evaluating the environmental significance of effects disclosed by the Initial Study, the
City shall consider:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(�
Whether the Initial Study and/or any comments received informally during consultations
indicate that a fair azgument can be made that the project may have a significant adverse
environmental impact which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Even if a
fair argument can be made to the contrary, an EIR should be prepared.
Whether both primary (direct) and secondary (indirect) consequences of the project were
evaluated. Primary consequences are immediately related to the project, while secondary
consequences are related more to the primary consequences than to the project itself. For
example, secondary impacts upon the resources base, including land, air, water and
energy use of an area, may result from population growth, a primary impact.
Whether adverse social and economic changes will result from a physical change caused
by the project. Adverse economic and social changes resulting from a project are not, in
themselves, significant environmental effects. However, if such adverse changes cause
physical changes in the environment, those consequences may be used as the basis for
finding that the physical change is significant.
Whether there is serious public controversy or disagreement among experts over the
environmental effects of the project. However, controversy or disagreement alone shall
not require preparation of an EIR in the absence of substantial evidence of significant
effects.
Whether the cumulative impact of the project is significant and whether the incremental
effects of the project are "cumulatively considerable" (as defined in Guidelines Section
10.10) when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, current projects, and
probable future projects.
Whether the project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological or historical resource.
S ACV T B\2006\C ITY�22869.3
5-3
OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implemendng the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (20061
5.08 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT.
Initial Studv
Whenever there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that any of the
conditions set forth below may occur, the City shall find that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment and thereby shall require preparation of an EIlt:
(a) The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or
prehistory;
(b) The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals;
(c) The project has possible environmental effects which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with [he effects
of past, current, and probable future projects. That is, the City is required to detertnine
whether the incremental impacts of a project are cumulatively considerable by evaluating
them against the back-drop of the environmental effects of the other projects; or
(d} The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on humans
either directly or indirectly.
If, before the release of the CEQA document for public review, the potential for
triggering one of the mandatory findings of significance is avoided or mitigation measures or
project modifications reduce the potentially signifcant impacts to a point where clearly the
mandatory finding of significance is not triggered, preparation of an EIR is not mandated. If the
project's potential for triggering one of the mandatory iindings of significance cannot be avoided
or mitigated to a point where the criterion is clearly not triggered, an E1R shall be prepared, and
the relevant mandatory findings of significance shall be used: (1) as thresholds of significance
for purposes of preparing the EIR's impact analysis, (2) in mak.ing findings on the feasibility of
altematives or mitigation measures, (3) when found to be feasible, in making changes in the
project to lessen or avoid ihe adverse environmental impacts, and (�) when necessary, in
adopting a statement of overriding considerations.
Although an EIR prepared for a project that triggers one of the mandatory findings of
significance must use the relevant mandatory findings as thresholds of significance, the EIR need
not conclude that the impact itself is significant. Rather, the City must exercise its discretion and
determine, on a case-by-case basis after evaluating all of the relevant evidence, whether the
project's environmental impacts are avoided or mitigated below a level of significance or
whether a statement of overriding considerations is required.
With regard to a project that has the potential to substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a protected species, the City dces not have to prepare an EIR solely due to
that impact, provided the project meets the following three criteria:
SACVi'B�2006\CITY122869.3 5-4 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines forTinplementing the
California Environmental Oualitv Act (2004)
Initial Stud��
r (1) � The project proponent must be bound to implement mitigation
requirements relating to such species and habitat pursuant to an approved
habitat conservation plan and/or natural communities conservation plan;
(2) The state or federal agency must have approved the habitat conservation
plan andlor natural community conservation plan in reliance on an EIR
andJor EIS; and �
(3) The mitigation requirements must either avoid any net loss of habitat and
net reduction in number of the affected species, or preserve, restore, or
enhance sufficient habitat to mitigate the reduction in habitat and number
of the affected species below a level of significance.
5.09 MANDATORY PREPARATION OF AN EIR FOR WASTE-BURNING PROJECTS.
The City, as Lead Agency, shall prepare or cause to be prepared, and certify the
completion of, an EIR., or, if appropriate, a modification, addendum, or supplement to an existing
EIR, for any project involving the burning of municipal wastes, hazardous waste or refuse-
derived fuel, including, but not limited to, tires, if the project consists of any of the following:
(a) The construction of a new facility.
(b) The expansion of an existing hazardous waste burning facility which would increase its
permitted capacity by more than 10°l0.
(c) The issuance of a hazardous waste facilities permit to a land disposal facility, as defined
in Guidelines Section 10.26.
(d) The issuance of a hazardous waste facilities permit to an offsite large treatment facility,
as defined in Guidelines Sections 10.27 and 10.42
This section dces not apply to projects listed in subsections (c) and (d), immediately
above, if the facility only manages hazardous waste that is identified or listed pursuant to Health
and Safety Code Section 25140 or 25141 or only conducts activities which are regulated
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 25100, et seq.
The City shall calculate the percentage of expansion for an existing facility by comparing
the proposed facility's capacity with either of the following, as applicable:
(a) The facility capacity authorized in the facility's hazardous waste facilities permit
pursuant to Section 25200 of the Health and Safety Code, or its grant of interim status
pursuant to Section 25200.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or the facility capacity
authorized in any state or local agency permit allowing the construction or operation of
the facility for the burning of hazardous waste granted before January 1, 1990; or
(b) The facility capacity authorized in the facility's original hazardous facilities permit, grant
of interim status, or any state or local agency permit allowing the construction or
operation of a facility for the burning of hazardous waste, granted on or after January l,
1990.
The EIR requirement does not apply to any project which exclusively burns any of the
followin�:
SACUTB\20061CITY\?2869.3 $-5 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Oualiry Act (2006)
(a}
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(�
(g)
(h)
(i)
�)
(k)
(1)
(m)
Ipitial Studv
digester gas produced from manure or any other solid or semi-solid animal waste;
methane gas produced from a disposal site which is used only for the disposal of solid
waste;
forest, agricultural, wood or other biomass wastes;
hazardous waste in an incineration unit that is transportable and which is either at a site
for not longer than three years or is part of a remedia] or removal action;
refinery waste burned in a flare on the site of generation; -
methane gas produced at a municipal sewage treatment plant and burned in a flare;
hazardous waste, or hazardous waste as a supplemental fuel, as part of a research,
development, or demonstration project which, consistent with the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976, has been determined to be innovative and experimental by the
State Department of Health Services and which is limited in type and quantity of waste to
that necessary to deternune the efficacy and performance capabilities of the technology or
process; provided, however, that any facility which operated as a research, development
or demonstration project and for which an application is thereafter submitted for a
hazardous ..w._aste facility permit for operation other than as a research, development or
demonstratian project shall be considered a new facility for the burning of hazardous
waste, and therefore subject to EIR requirements;
soils contaminated only with petroleum fuels or the vapors from these soils;
exclusively treats less than 3,000 pounds of hazardous waste per day in a thermal
processing unit operated in the absence of open flame, and submits a worst-case health
risk assessment of the technology to the State DepaRment of Health Services for review
and distribution to the interested public. This assessment shall be prepared in accordance
with guidelines set forth in the Air Toxics Assessment Manual of the California Air
Pollution Control Officers Association;
less than 1,200 pounds of infectious waste per day, as defined in Section 25117.5 of the
Health and Safety Code, on hospital sites;
chemicals and fuels as part of frefighter training;
exclusively conducts open burns of explosives subject to the requirements of the local or
regional air pollution control district and in compliance with OSHA and Cal-OSHA
regulations; or
exclusively conducts onsite burning of less than 3,000 pounds per day of fumes directly
from a manufacturing or commercial process.
Such projects are not exempt from the other requirements of CEQA, the State Guidelines,
or these Local Guidelines.
This section does not apply to any project over which the State Energy Resources
Conservation and Development Commission has assumed jurisdiction per Health and Safety
Code Section 25500, et se4.
5.10 DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO AN EXISTING COMMUNITY PLAN AND EIR.
Before preparing a CEQA document, Staff should determine whether the proposed
project involves development consistent with an earlier zoning or community plan to
accommodate a particular density for which an EIR has been certified. If an earlier EIR for the
zoning or planning action has been ceRified, and if the proposed project is approval of a
SACUTB�20061CITY�22869.3 5-6 OBest Best & Kriegtr LLP
Local Guidelines for�Lnplementing the
Caiifomia Environmentai Quali4v Act {20p(>) Initial Studv
subdivision map or development, CEQA applies only to the extent the project raises
environmental effects peculiaz to the parcel which were not addressed in the earlier EIlZ. Off-site
and cumulative effects not discussed in the general plan EIR must still be considered. Mitigation
measures set out in the eazlier EIR should be implemented ai this siage.
Environmental effects shall not be considered peculiar to the parcel if uniformly applied
development policies or standards have been previously adopted by a city or county with a
fnding based on substantial evidence that the policy or standard will substantially mitigate the
environmental effect when applied to future projects. Any rezoning action consistent with the
Community Plan shall be subject to exemption from CEQA in accordance with this section.
"Community Plan" means part of a city's general plan which: (1) applies to a defined
geographic portion of the total area included in the general plan, (2) complies with Article 5
(commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code
by referencing each of the mandatory elements specified in Government Code Section 65302,
and (3) contains specific development policies adopted for the area in the Community Plan and
identifies measures_ to implement those policies, so that the policies which will apply to each
parcel can be deternvned. .
5.11 LAND USE POLICIES.
When a project will amend a general plan or another land use policy, the Initial Study
must address how the change in policy and its expected direct and indirect effects will affect the
environment. When the amendments constitute substantial changes in policies that result in a
significant impact on the environment, an EIR may be required.
5.12 EVALUATING IMPACTS ON HISTORICAL RESOURCES.
Projects that may cause a substarz�ial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource, as defined in Guidelines Section 10.22, are projects that may have a signifcant effect
on the environment, thus requiring consideration under CEQA. Particulaz attention and care
should be given when considering such projects, especially projects involving the demolition of a
historical resource, since such demolitions have been determined to cause a significant effect on
the environment.
Substantial adverse change in the signi�cance of a historical resource means physical
demolition, destruction, relocation or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings,
such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.
The significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
(a) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a
historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in,
or eligibility for inclusion in, the California Register of Historical Resources;
(b) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that
account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources or its identiiication in a
historical resources survey, unless the Lead Agency establishes by a preponderance of
evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or
SACUTB�2006\CI7Y122869.3 5-% OBest Best & Krieger LLP
L.ocal Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental pualitv Act (2006)
Initial Studv
(c) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a
historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for
inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as deternuned by the Lead
Agency for purposes of CEQA.
Generally, a project that follows either one of the following sets of standards and
guidelines will be considered mitigated to a level of less than significance: (a) the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings; or (b) the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating I-�istoric Buildings
(1995}, Weeks and Grimmer.
In the event of an accidental discovery of a possible historical resource during
construction of the project, the City may provide for the evaluation of the find by a qualified
archaeologist or other professional. If the find is deternuned to be a historical resource, the City
should take appropriate steps to implement appropriate avoidance or mitigation measures. Work
on non-affected porfions of the project, as determined by the City, may continue during the
process. Curation may be an appropriate mitigation measure for an artifact that must be removed
during project excavation or testing.
5.13 EVALUATING IiVIPACTS ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES.
When a project will impact an archaeological site, the City shall first determine whether
the site is a historical resource, as de�ned in Guidelines Section 10.22. If the archaeological site
is a historical resource, it shall be treated and evaluated as such, and not as an archaeological
resource. If the archaeological site does not meet the definition of a historical resource, but does
meet the definition of a uniyue archaeological resource set forth in Section 21083.2 of the Public
Resaurces Code, the site shall be treated in accordance with said provisions of the Public
Resources Code. The time and cost limitations described in Section 21083.2(c-� do not apply to
surveys and site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project site contains
unique archaeological resources.
If the archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological resource nor a historical
resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect
on the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect on it are noted in
the Initial Study or EIlZ, if one is prepared to address impacts on other resources, but they need
not be considered further in the CEQA process.
In the event of an accidental discovery of a possible unique archaeological resource
during construction of the project, the City may provide for the evaluation of the find by a
qualified archaeologist. If the find is determined to be a unique archaeological resource, the City
should take appropriate steps to implement appropriate avoidance or mitigation measures. Wbrk
on non-affected portions of the project, as determined by the City, may continue during the
process. Curation may be an appropriate mitigation measure for an artifact that must be removed
during project excavation or testing.
When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native
SACU1'B�2006\CI'I'Y�2869.3 5-g OBest Best & Krieger L.LP
L.ocal Guidelines for tmplementing the .
Califomia Es�vironmental4uality Act f 2006) Initial Studv
; American human remains within the Project, the City shall comply with the provisions of State
� CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d). In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of
any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the City shall comply with
the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e).
5.14 CONSULTATION WITH WATER AGENCIES REGARDING LARGE DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS. �
(a) Projects Subject to Consultation Requirements.
This section applies only when a project involves one of the following:
(1 } Over 500 homes;
(2) Shopping centers or businesses with over 1,000 employees or 5(}0,000
square feet vf floor space;
(3) Commercial office buildings with over 1,000 employees or � 250,OQ0
square feet of floor space;
(4) Hotels or motels with more than 500 rooms;
(5) Industrial, manufacturing or processing plants which will house more than
1,000 persons, occupy more than 40 acres of land or have more than
b50,000 square feet of floor space;
(6) Mixed-use projects that include one or more of their projects specified in
this section;
(7) Projects that woald demand at least as much water as a 500 dwelling unit
project; or
(8) If a public water system has fewer than 5,000 connections, then this
section applies to any proposed residential, business, commercial, hotel or
motel, or industrial development that would increase the public water
system's number of service connections by 10% or more, or any mixed-
use project that would increase water demand by an amount equivalent to
a 10% increase in service connections.
(b) Water Supply Assessment.
When the City deternunes what type of environmental document will be prepared for a
project, the City must identify any public water system that may supply water for the project and
request that the public water system prepare a specified water supply assessment. For purposes
of this section, any system that provides water to 3,000 or more service connections qualifies as a
public water system. The assessment must include identification of existing water supply
entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the water supply for the
proposed project and water received in prior years pursuant to those entitlements, rights, and
SACUTB\2006\CITY�22869.3 5-9 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Ouality A�t {2006) Initial Studv
contracts. If the puhlic water system concludes that the water supply is, or will be, insufficient, it ,
must submit plans for acquiring additional water supplies. If a city is unable to identify any
public water system that may supply water for the project, the City must prepare the water
supply assessment itself. The City must include the water supply assessment (prepared by the
public water system or itself) in any environmental document prepared for the project. A
discussion of water supply availability should be included in the main text of the environmental
document. Normally, this discussion should be based on the data and info�mation included in
the water supply assessment. For complete information on these requirements, consult Water
Code Sections 10910, et seq.
5.15 SUBDNISIONS WITH MORE Ti�AN 500 DWELLING UNIT5.
The City and its advisory agencies are prohibited from approving a tentative map, parcel
map for which a tentative map was not required, or a development agreement for a subdivision
of property of more than 500 dwellings units, unless:
(1) --��- The City Council or the advisory agency receives written verification from
the applicable public water system that a sufficient water supply is
available; or
(2) Under certain circumstances, the City Council or the advisory agency
makes a specified finding that sufficient water supplies are, or will be,
available prior to completion of the project.
As a result, the City should obtain written verification as described above during the
Initial Study phase of the CEQA process for any proposed residential development of more than
500 dwelling units. For complete information on these requirements, consult Government Code
Section 66473.7.
5.16 IMPACTS TO OAK WOODLANDS.
When a county prepares an Initial Study to determine what type of environmental
document will be prepared for a project within its jurisdiction, the county must determine
whether the project may result in a conversion of oak woodlands that will have a significant
effect on the environment. Normally, this rule dces not apply to projects undertaken by the City.
However, if the City is a Responsible Agency on such a project, the City should endeavor to
ensure that the county, as Lead Agency, analyzes these impacts in accordance with CEQA.
5.17 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT.
The job of the Initial Study is to identify which environmental impacts may be
significant. Based upon the Initial Study, Staff shall determine whether a proposed project may
or will have a significant effect on the environment. Such determination shall be made in writing
on the Environmental Impact Assessment Form (Form "C"). If Staff iinds that a project will not
have a significant effect on the environment, it shall recommend that a Negative Declaration be
prepared and adopted by the decision-making body. If Staff finds that a project may have a
significant effect on the environment, but the effects can be mitigated to a level of insignificance,
it shall recommend that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be prepared and adopted by the
SACUT612006\CITY�22869.3 S-1 � OBest Best & Kricger LLP
Local Guidelines for Impiementing the
Califomia Environmental Ouality Act (2006)
iqitial Studv
(� decision-making body. If Staff finds that a project may have a significant effect on the
environment, it shall recommend that an EIR be prepared and certified by the decisionmaking
body.
5.18 FINAL DETERMINATION.
The City Council shall have the final responsibility for determining whether an EIR,
Negative Declazation or Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be required for any project. The
City Council's determination shall be final and conclusive on all persons, including Responsible
Agencies and Trustee Agencies, except as provided in Section 15050(c) of the-State Guidelines.
SAC�ITB12006\CITY�28693 5-1 1 OBest Be�t & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Itnplementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (20061
6. NEGATIVE DECLARATION
6.01 DECISION TO PREPARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
NeQative Declazation
A Negative Declaration (Form "E") shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA
when the Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record
that the project may have a signifcant or potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment. (See Guidelines Sections 10.45 and 10.50.)
6.02 DECISION TO PREPARE A MITIGATED NEGATiVE DECLARATION. -
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Form "E") shall be prepared for a project subject to
CEQA when the Initial Study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment, but:
(a) The project applicant has agreed to revise the project or the City can revise the project to
avoid these significant effects or to mitigate the effects to a point where it is cleaz that no
significant e�fects would occur and
(b) There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the
revised project may have a significant effect.
If an applicant proposes mitigation measures, the project plans must be revised to
incorporate these mitigation measures before the proposed Negative Declaration is released for
public review. It is insufficient to require an applicant to adopt mitigation measures after final
( adoption of the Negative Declaration or to state that mitigation measures will be recommended
on the basis of a future study. The City must know the measures at the time the Negative
Declaration is adopted in order for them to be evaluated and accepted as adequate mitigation.
Evidence of agreement by the applicant to such mitigation should be in the record prior to public
review. Except where noted, the procedural requirements for the preparation and approval of a
Negative Declaration and Mitigated Negative Declaration are the same.
6.03 CONTRACTING FOR PREPARATION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
The City, when acting as Lead Agency, is responsible for preparing all documents
required pursuant to CEQA. The documents may be prepared by Staff or by private consultants
pursuant to a contract with the City, but they must be the City's product and reflect the
independent judgment of the City.
6.04 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIYE
DECLARATION.
When, based upon the Initial Study, it is recommended to the decision-making body that
a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted, a Notice of Intent to
Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (Form "D") shall be provided
to the public, to all Responsible Agencies and to every other public agency with jurisdiction by
law over resources affected by the project. The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration
or Mitigated Negative Declaration (Form "D") must be filed and posted at least twenty (20) days,
or, in cases subject to review by the State Clearinghouse, posted by the Office and Planning and
Research at least thirty (30) days, before the �nal adoption of the Negative Declaration or
SANTB�20061CI'TY\22869.3 6-1 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Unplementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (2006) Ne¢ative Declaration
Mitigated Negative Declaration by the decision-making body. The Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negadve Declaration shall be mailed to the last known name '
and address of all organizations and individuals who have previously filed a written request with
the City. A copy of the proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration and
the Initial Study shall be attached to the Notice of Intent to Adopt that is sent to every
Responsible Agency and Trustee Agency concerned with the project and every other public
agency with jurisdiction by law over resources affected by the project. The-City may charge a
fee for this service, except to other public agencies. The City may require requests for notices to
be renewed annually. If the dacuments are submitted to the State Clearinghouse for circulation,
the public review period shall be at least as long as the period of review by the State
Clearinghouse. (See Guidelines Section 6.06.) If the City is submitting a Negative Declaration
or Mitigated Negative Declaration to the State Clearinghouse, the Notice of Completion form
may be used.
The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration
shall contain the following information:
(a) The period during which comments shall be received.
(b) The date, time and place of any public meetings or hearings on the proposed project.
(c) A brief description of the proposed project and its location.
(d) The address where copies of the proposed Negative Deciaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration and all documents referenced in the proposed Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration are available for review.
(e) The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") list on which the proposed project site is
located, if applicable, and the corresponding information from the applicant's statement.
(See Guidelines Section 2.04.)
(� T'he significant effects on the environment, if any, anticipated as a result of the proposed
project.
The proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study
must reflect the independent judgment of the City.
6.05 POSTING AND PUBLICATION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION.
The City shall have a copy of the Notice of Intent to Adopt, the Draft Negative
Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study posted at the City's offices
and made available for public inspection. The Notice must be provided either twenty (20) or
thirty (30) days prior to final adoption of the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration: Negative Declarations prepared for projects subject to State Clearinghouse review
must be circulated for at least thirty (30) days, while all other Negative Declarations must be
circulated for at least twenty (20) days.
The Notice must also be posted in the office of the Clerk in each county in which the
Pro}ect is located and must remain posted far a minimum of twenty (20) days, unless otherwise
required by law to be posted for thirty (30) days. The Clerk shall post the Notice within twenty-
four (24) hours of receipt.
SACUTB120061CITY132869.3 f�-2 OBcst Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for�Implementirtg the •
California Environmental Oualitv Act (20061 NeQative Declaration
( As stated iri Guidelines Section 6.04, notice shall be given by mail to the last known
name and address of all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such
notice. In addition, it must be given by at least one of the following procedures:
(a) Publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the
proposed project. If more than one area will be affected, the notice shall be published in
the newspaper of largest circulation from among the newspapers of general circulation in
those areas;
(b) Posting of notice on and off site in the area where the project is to be located; or
(c} Direct mailing to owners and occupants of property contiguous to the project, as shown
on the latest equalized assessment roll.
The City shall consider all comments received during the public review period for the
Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. Comments submitted via email shall
be treated as written comments for all purposes. Comments sent to the public agency via email
are deemed received when they actually arrive in an email account of a staff person who has
been designated or identified as the point of contact for a particular project. .
The City is not required to respond in writing to comments it receives either during or
after the public review period. However, the City may want to provide a written resgonse to all
comments if it will not delay action on the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative
Declaration, since any comment received prior to final action on the Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration can form the basis of a Iegal challenge. A written response
which refutes the comment or adequately explains the City's action in light of the comment will
assist the City in defending against a legal challenge. The City shall notify any public agency
which comments on a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration of the public
hearing or hearings, if any, on the project for which the Negative Declaration or Mitigated
Negative Declaration was prepared.
6.06 StiBMISSION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TO STATE CLEARINGHOUSE.
A Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration must be submitted to the State
Clearinghouse for circulation in the following situations:
(a) The Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is prepared by a Lead
Agency that is a state agency.
(b) The Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is prepared by a public
agency where a state agency is a Responsible Agency, Trustee Agency, or otherwise has
jurisdiction by law with respect to the project.
(c) The Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is for a project identified in
State Guidelines Section 15206 as being of statewide, regional, or areawide significance.
State Guidelines Section 15206 identifies the following types of projects as being
examples of projects of statewide, regional, or areawide significance which require submission to
the State Clearinghouse for circulation:
SACU'TB12006\CTfY\22869.3 6-3 ORest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Ouality Act (2006)
Negative Declaratipn
Projects which have the potential for causing significant environmental effects
beyond the city or county where the project would be located, such as:
• Residential development of more than S00 units.
• Commercial projects employing more than 1,000 persons or covering
more than 500,000 square feet of floor space.
• Office building projects employing more than 1,000 persons or covering
more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.
� Hotel or motel development of more than 500 rooms.
• Industrial projects housing more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than
40 acres of land, or covering more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.
• Projects for the cancellation of a Williamson Act contract covering more than 100
acres.
• Projects in one of the following Environmentally Sensitive Areas:
• Lake Tahoe Basin.
• Santa Monica Mountains Zone.
• � Sacramento-San 3oaquin River Delta.
• Suisun Marsh.
• Coastal Zone, as defined by the California Coastal Act.
• Areas within one-quarter mile of a river designated as wild and scenic.
• Areas within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission.
• Projects which would affect sensitive wildlife habitats or the habitats of any rare,
threatened, or endangered species.
• Projects which would interfere with water quality standards.
• Projects which would provide housing, jobs, or occupancy for 500 or more people
within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant.
A Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Lleclaration may also be submitted to the
State Clearinghouse for circulation if a state agency has special expertise with regard to the
environmental impacts involved.
When the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is submitted to the
State Clearinghouse for review, the review period shall be at least thirty (30) days. The review
period begins (day one) on the date that the State Clearinghouse distributes the Negative
Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration to state agencies. The State Clearinghouse is
required to distribute the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration to state
agencies within three working days from the date the State Clearinghouse receives the document,
as long as the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete when
submitted to the State Clearinghouse. If the document submitted to the State Clearinghouse is
not complete, the State Clearinghouse must notify the Lead Agency. The review period for the
public and all other agencies may run concurrently with the state agency review period
established by the State Clearinghouse, but the public review period cannot conclude before the
state agency review period does.
When a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is submitted to the State
Clearinghouse, a Notice of Completion (Form "H") should be included as a cover sheet. A
SACUTB12006\CI7'Y122869.3 ()-4 OBest Bect & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (2006)
Negative Declaration
sufficient number �of copies of the documents must be sent to the State Clearinghouse for
circulation. Staff should contact the State Clearinghouse to find out the correct number of
printed copies required for circulation. In addition to the printed copies, a copy of the documents
in electronic format shall be submitted on a diskette or by electronic mail transmission if
available.
A shorter review period by the State Clearinghouse for a Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration can be requested by the decision-making body. The shortened
review period shall not be less than twenty (20) days. 5uch a request must be made in writing by
the Lead Agency to the Ofiice af Planning and Research. The decision-making body may
designate by resolution or ordinance an individual authorized to request a shorter review period.
Any approval of a shortened review period must be given prior to, and reflected in, the public
notice. However, a shortened review period shall not be approved by the Office of Planning and
Research for any proposed project of statewide, regional or areawide environmental signi�cance,
as defined by State Guidelines Section 15206.
6.07 SPECIAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE AND FUEL BURNING PROJECTS.
For any waste burning project, as defined in Guidelines Section 5.09, Notice of Intent to
Adopt a Negative Declaration (see Guidelines SecCion 6.04) shall be given to all organizations
and individuals who have previously requested it and shall also be given by all three of the
procedures listed in Guidelines Section 6.05. In addition, Notice shall be given by direct mailing
to the owners and occupants of property within one-quarter mile of any parcel or parcels on
which such a project is located.
T'hese notice requirements apply only to those projects described in Guidelines Section
5.08. These notice requirements do not preclude the City from providing additional notice by
other means if desired.
6.08 CONSULTATION WITH WATER AGENCIES REGARDING LARGE DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS.
Under specific circumstances the City must consult with the public water system which
will supply the project to determine whether it can adequately supply the water needed for the
project. See Guidelines Section 5.15 for more information on these requirements.
G.09 CONTENT OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
A Negative Declaration must be prepared directly by or under contract to the City and
should generally resemble Form "E." It shall contain the following information:
(a) A brief description of the project proposed, including any commonly used name for the
project, if any. •
(b) The location of the project and the name of the project proponent.
(c) A iinding that the project as proposed will not have a significant effect on the
environment.
(d) An attached copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the findina.
SACVTBI2(�6�CITY\22869.3 6-5 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (20061
NeEative Declaration
(e) For a Mitigated Negative Declaration, feasible mitigation measures included in the
project to substantially lessen or avoid potentially significant effects, which must be fully
enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Such permit
conditions, agreements, and measures must be consistent with applicable constitutional
requirements such as the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards established by
case law.
6.10 ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATTON.
Following the publication, posting or mailing of the Notice of Intent to �►dopt a Negative
Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, but in no event sooner than the expiration of the
applicable twenty (20) or thirty (30) day public review period, the Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration may be presented to the decision-making body at a regular or
special meeting. Prior to adoption, the City shall independently review and analyze the Negative
Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration and fnd that the Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City. If the decision-
making body finds tTiat the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, it shall
adopt the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declazation. When adopting the Negative
Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City shall specify the location and custodian
of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which it
based its decision.
If the decision-making body finds that the proposed project may have a significant effect
on the environment that cannot be mitigated or avoided, it shall order the preparation of a Draft
EIR and the iiling of a Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR. Recirculation should be considered
if substantial new mitigation is added after public review (see Guidelines Section 6.13).
6.11 MITIGATION REPORTING OR MONITORING PROGRAM FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION.
When adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to Guidelines Section 6.10,
the City shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program to assure that mitigation measures which
are required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment will be fully enforceable
through pernvt conditions, agreements, or other measures and implemented by the project
proponent or other responsible party in a timely manner, in accordance with conditions of project
approval. The City shall also specify the location and the custodian of the documents which
constitute ihe record of proceedings upon which it based its decision. There is no requirement
that the reporting or monitoring program be circulated for public review; however, the City may
choose to circulate it for public comments along with the Negative Declaration. The mitigation
measures required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment must be adopted as
conditions of project approval.
This reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to assure compliance during the
implementation or canstruction of a project and shall otherwise comply with the requirements
described in Guidelines Section 7.32. If a Responsible Agency or Trustee Agency has required
that certain conditions be incorporated into the project, the City may request that agency to
prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. T'he City shall also require that
SACVTB\2(XX�\GTY�22869.3 6-f C�Best Best & Krieger LLP
L.ocal Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Oua{itv Act (2006) Ner_ative Declaration
( prior to the close� of the public review period for a Mitigated Negative Declaration (see
Guidelines Section 6.04), the Responsible or Trustee Agency submit detailed performance
objectives for mitigation measures, or refer the City to appropriate, readily available guidelines
or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to the City by a Responsible or
Trustee Agency shall be limited to measures which mitigate impacts to resources which are
within the Responsible or Trustee Agency's authority.
Local agencies have the authority to levy fees sufficient to pay for this program.
Therefore, the City can charge the project proponent a fee to cover actual costs of program
processing and implementation.
Transportation information resulting from the reporting or monitoring program required
to be adopted by the City shall be submitted to the regional transportation planning agency where
the project is located and to the Department of Transportation for a project of statewide, regional
or areawide significance according to State Guidelines Section 15206. The transportation
planning agency .�nd the Department of Transportation are required by law to adopt guidelines
for the submittal of these reporting or monitoring programs, so the City may wish to.tailor its
submittal to such guidelines.
G.12 APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF PROJECT.
At the time of adoption of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, the
decision-making body may consider the project for purposes of approval or disapproval. Prior to
approving the project, the decision-making body shall consider the Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with any written comments received and considered
during the public review period, and shall approve or disapprove the Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration. In making a�nding as to whether there is any substantial
evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the factors listed in
Guidelines Section 5.08 should be considered. (See Guidelines Section 7.30 for approval
requirements for facilities which may emit hazardous pollutants or which may handle extremely
hazardous substances within one-quarter mile of a school site.)
6.13 RECIRCULATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATNE
DECLARATION.
A Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration must be recirculated when the
document must be substantially revised after the public review period but prior to its adoption.
A"substantial revision" is defined as a new and avoidable significant effect for which mitigation
measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to a level of
insignificance. A"substantial revision" can also include when the City determines that the
proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce the potential effects to less
than significant and new measures or revisions must be required.
Recirculation is not required under the following circumstances:
(a) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures, and the City
makes a finding to that effect.
SACVTBI?0061C1'TY\22869.3 6-% OBcst Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Envirpnmental Oualicy Act (2006)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Ne�ative Declaration
New project revisions are added after circulation of the Negative Declaration or
Mitigated Negative Declaration or in response to written or oral comments on the
project's effects, but the revisions do not create new significant environmental effects and
are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect.
Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the Negative
Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, but the measures or conditions are not
required by CEQA, do not create new significant environmental effects and are not
necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect.
New information is added to the Negative Declaration or Midgated Deciaration which
merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications �o the Negative
Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration.
If, after preparation of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, the
City determines that the project requires an EIR, it shall circulate the Draft EIlZ for consultation
and review and advise reviewers in writing that a proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated
Declaration had previously been circulated for the project.
6.14 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ON A PROJECT FOR WHICH A PROPOSED NEGATIVE OR
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN APPROVED.
Following consideration and approval of a project for which the City is Lead Agency, the
decision-making body shall order Staff to prepare and file a Notice of Deternunation (Form "F")
which shall contain the following:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e}
i�
�g)
An identification of the project including the project title as identified on the proposed
Negative Declaration, location, and the State Clearinghouse identification number for the
proposed Negative Declaration if the Notice of Determination is filed with the State
Clearinghouse;
A brief description of the project;
The name of the City and the date on which the City approved the project;
The determination of the City that the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment;
A statement that a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted
pursuant to the provisions of CEQA;
A statement indicating whether mitigation measures were made a condition of the
approval of the project, and whether a mitigation monitoring plan/program was adopted;
and
The address where a copy of the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration
may be examined.
The Notice of Determination shall be filed with the Clerk of each county in which the
project will be located within five (5) working days of project approval. The City is encouraged
to make copies of filed notices available in electronic format on the Internet. Such electronic
notices are in addition to the posting requirements of the CEQA Guidelines and the Public
Resources Code. The Clerk must post the Notice of Determination within twenty-four (24)
hours of receipt. The Notice must be posted in the office of the Clerk for a minimum of thirty
(30) days. Thereafter, the Clerk shall return the notice to the City with a notation of the period it
SACUTB�006\CITY\22869.3
.:
�OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines forLnQlementing the
California Environmental Qualitv Act (20Q61 Negative Declaration
�� was posted. The City shall retain the notice for not less than twelve (12) months. If the project
requires discretionary approval from any State agency, the Notice of Determination shall also be
filed with the Office of Planning and Research within five (5) working days of project approval
along with proof of payment of the California Department of Fish and Game fee or Certificate of
Fee Exemption (see Guidelines Section 6.18). Simultaneously with the filing of the Notice of
Determinatian with the Clerk, Staff shall cause a copy of the Notice of Determination to be
pasted at City Hall. �
When a request is made for a copy of the Notice prior to the date on which the City
adopts the Ne�ative Declaration, the copy must be mailed, first class postage prepaid, within five
(5) days of the City's determination. If such a request is made following the City's
determination, then the copy should be mailed in the same manner as soon as possible. The
recipients of such documents may be charged a fee reasonably related to the cost of providing the
service.
For projects with more than one phase, Staff shal] file a Notice of Determination for each
phase requiring a discretionary approval. .
The filing and posting of a Notice of Determination with the Clerk, and, if necessary,
with the Office of Planning and Research, usually starts a thirty (30) day statute of limitations on
court challenges to the approval under CEQA. When separate notices are iiled for successive
phases of the same overall project, the thirty (30) day statute of limitation to challenge the
subsequent phase begins to run when the second notice is file�i. Failure to iile the Notice results
�, in a one hundred eighty (180) day statute of limitations.
6.15 ADDENDUM TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
The City may prepare an addendum to an adopted Negative Declaration if only minor
technica! changes or additions are necessary. The City may also prepare an addendum to an
adopted Negative Declaration when none of the conditions calling for a subsequent nNegative
Declaration have occurred. (See Guidelines Section 6.16 below.) An addendum need not be
circulated for public review but can be attached to the adopted Negative Declaration. The City
shall consider the addendum wiih ihe adopted Negative Declaration prior to project approval.
6.16 SUSSEQUENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
When a Negative Declaration has been adopted for a project, or when an EIR has been
certified, a subsequent Negative Declaration or EIR must be prepared in the following instances:
(a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will reyuire major revisions of the
previous EIIZ or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects; �
(b} Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative
Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identiiied significant effects; or
SACUTB\2006`CITY122869.3 6-9 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Fnvironmental Qualitv Act (20Q61 Neg�tive D'eclaration
(c} New information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was
certified or the Negative Declaration was adopted which shows any of the following:
(1) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR or Negative Declaration;
(2) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe
than shown in the previous EIR;
(3) Mitigation measure(s) or alternative(s) previously found not to be feasible
would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects of the project, but the project proponents declined to
adopt the mitigation measure(s) or alternative(s); or
(4) Mitigation measure(s) or alternative(s) which are considerably different
-- -- from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or
more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents
decline to adopt the mitigation measure(s) or alternative(s).
The City as Lead Agency would then determine whether a Subsequent EIR,
Supplemental EIR, Negative Declaration or Addendum would be applicable. Subsequent
Negative Declarations must be given the same notice and public review period as other Negative
Declarations. The Subsequent Negative Declaration shall state where the previous document is
available and can be reviewed.
6.17 PRIVATE PROJECT COSTS.
For private projects, the person or entity proposing to carry out the project shall bear all
costs incurred by the City in preparing the Initial Study and in preparing and fling the Negative
Declaration and Notice of Determination.
6.18 FILING FEES FOR PROJECTS WHICH AFFECT WILDLIFE RESOURCES.
At the time a Notice of Determination for a Negative Declaration is filed with the Clerk,
a fee of $1,250 shall be paid to the Clerk for projects which will adversely affect fish and
wildlife resources. These fees are collected by the Clerk on behalf of the California Department
of Fish and Game ("DFG").
Only one filing fee is required for each project unless the project is tiered or phased and
separate environmental documents are prepared. For projects where a Lead Agency and
Responsible Agencies fle separate Notices of Determination, only the Lead Agency is required
to pay the fee.
Note: The Clerk customarily charges a documentary handling fee for each project in
addition to the filing fee specified above. Refer to the Index in the Staff Summary to help
determine the correct amount.
SANTB�20061CITY�28693 6- � � OBesi Best & Krieger LLP
Locai Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (20061
NeQative Declaration
For private projects, the City shall pass these costs on to the project applicant.
No fees are required for projects with a"de minimis" effect on fish and wildlife
resources, or for certain projects undertaken by the DFG and implemented through a contract
with a non-profit entity or local government agency. A project with a"de minimis" effect has no
potential for adverse effect on iish and wildlife. This is an important exception. DFG considers
the following projects as likely to have "de minimis" effects on fish and wildlife, depending on
the speci�c facts of each project:
(1) Projects which enhance fish and wildlife and their habit�ts and result in no
accompanying adverse impacts to fish or wildlife;
(2) Lot line adjustments;
(3) Building remodeling;
(4j� �- Annexations;
(5) Redevelopment on existing urban subdivisions with no wildlife habitat;
(6) Infill of undeveloped urban lots; or
(7) Adoption of a General Plan, where CEQA requires a subsequent
discretionary project approval before any physical change to natural
habitat is permitted.
If the City believes that a project will have a"de minimis" effect on wildlife resources, it
should file the Certificate of Fee Exemption attached as Form "L". This form requires the City
to set forth facts in support of the fee exemption. These facts should include: (1) the name and
address of the project proponent; (2) a brief description of the project and its location; (3) a
statement that an Initial Study has been prepared by the City to evaluate the project's effects on
wildlife resources, if any; (4) a declaration that there is no evidence before the City that the
project wil] have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources; and (5) a declaration that
the City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, "rebutted" the presumption of adverse effect
contained in the regulations. A presumption of adverse effect occurs if the project has the
potential for adverse effects on the fish and wildlife resources as listed on Form "L". To rebut
the presumption of adverse effect, the City should explain in ihe declaration why the project
would not have an adverse impact on fish and wildlife and reference any supporting evidence.
These findings should be made at the time of approval of the Negative Declaration and attached
to Form "L" when submitted to the County. Two copies of this form must be filed with the
Notice of Deternunation in order to obtain the fee exemption.
If the City believes that a project has been undertaken by the DFG, that the project's costs
are payable from one or more of the sources indicated in the Fish and Game Code, and that the
project is being implemented through a contract with a non-profit entity or a local government
agency, the DFG filing fee does not apply. Since the DFG has not yet adopted regulations to
govern this exemption, including a new "Certificate of Fee Exemption," the City may wish to
use Form "L" and make appropriate modifications to reflect this exemption.
SACUTB\2Q061CtTY�22869.3 6- � 1 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
l.ocal Guidelines for Implemenring the
Califomia EnviTonmental QuAli�v Ac� {2Qp6}
7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
7.01 DECISION TO PREPARE AN EIR.
EnviroII� Tm�act Rep�
� An EIR shall be prepared whenever there is substantial evidence in light of the whole
record which supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the
environment. (See Guidelines Sections 10.45 and 10.50.) The record may include the Initial
Study or other documents or studies prepared to assess the project's environmental impacts.
7.02 CONTRACTING FOR PREPARATION OF EIRS.
If a Draft EIR, EIR or Focused EIR is prepared under a contract to the City, the contract
must be executed within forty-five (45) days from the date on which the City sends a Notice of
Preparation. The City may take longer to execute the contract if the project applicant and the
City mutually agree to an extension of the 45-day time limit.
The Draft EIR, EIR or Focused EIR prepared under contract must be the City's product.
Staff, together with such consultant help as may be required, shall independently review and
analyze the Draft EIR, EIR or Focused EIR to verify its accuracy, objectivity and completeness
prior to presenting it to the decision-making body. The Draft EIR, E1R or Focused EIR made
available for public review must reflect the independent judgment of the City. Staff may require
such information and data from the person or entity proposing to carry out the project as it deems
necessary for completion of the Draft EIR, EIR or Focused EIR.
7.03 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF DRAFT EIR
After Staff determines that an E]R will be required for a proposed project, the City as
Lead Agency shall prepare and send a Notice of Preparation (Form "G") to each Responsible
Agency and Trustee Agency involved with the project, as well as the Office of Planning and
Research. When submitting the Notice of Preparation to the Office of Planning and Research, a
Notice of Completion (Form "H") should be used as a cover sheet. Responsible and Trustee
Agencies, the State Clearinghouse, and the state agencies contacted by the State Clearinghouse
have thirty (30) days to respond to the Notice of Preparation. Agencies that do not respond
within thirty (30) days shall be deemed not to have any comments on the Notice of Preparation.
The City shall send copies of the Notice of Preparation by certified mail or any other method of
transmittal which provides it with a record that the Notice was received. The IVotice must also
be posted in the office of the Clerk in each county in which the project is located for thirty (30)
days. The Clerk shall post the Notice within twenty-four (24} hours of receipt.
At a minimum, the Notice of Preparation shall include:
(a) A description of the project;
(b) The location of the project indicated either on an attached map (preferably a copy of the
U5GS 15' or 7'h' topographicat map identified by quadrangle name} or by a street
address and cross street in an urbanized area;
(c} The probable environmental effects of the project;
(d) The name and address of the consulting firm retained to prepare the Draft EIR, if
applicable; and
SACVT612006\CT['Y\22869.3 %-1 �Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualiri Act (20061 Environmental lmnact Reoq�
(e) The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") list on which the proposed site is located,
if applicable, and the corresponding information from the applicant's statement. (See
Guidelines Section 2.04.)
7.04 PREPARATION OF DRAFT EIR.
The City as Lead Agency is responsible for preparing a Draft EIR and may begin
preparation immediately without awaiting responses to the Notice of Preparation. However,
information communicated to the City not later than thirty (30) days after receipt of the City's
Notice of Preparation shall be included in the Draft EIR.
7.05 CONSULTATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND PERSONS.
To expedite consultation in response to the Notice of Preparation, the City as Lead
Agency, a Responsible Agency, or a project applicant may request a meeting among the agencies
involved tv assist the City in deternuning the scope and content of the environmental information
that responsible agencies may require. The City must convene the meeting as soon as possible
but no later than 30 days after the request. Prior to completion of the Draft EIR, the City shall
consult with each Responsible Agency and any public agency which has jurisdiction by law over
the project. The City may fulfill this obligation by soliciting the comments of the responsible
agency(ies) and any other affected agencies on the City's Notice of Preparation. The City shall
also consult with any city or county which borders the project or within which the project is
located, unless otherwise designated annually by agreement between the City and any other city
or county. The City may also consult with any individual who has special expertise with respect
to any environmental impacts involved with a project. The City may also consult directly with
any person or organization it believes will be concerned with the environmental effects of the
project including any interested individuals and organizations of which the City is reasonably
aware. The purpose of this consultation is to "scope" the EIR's range of analysis. When a
Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared for a project, no
scoping meeting need be held, although the City may hold one if it so chooses. The City as Lead
Agency may charge and collect from the applicant a fee not to exceed the actual cost of the
consultations.
For a project of "statewide, regional or areawide significance," as defined in State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15206, the City shall hold at least one scoping meeting. Likewise, for a
project that may affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State Department
of Transportation. The City shall call the scoping meeting as soon as possible but not later than
30 days after receiving the request from the Department of Transportation.
The City shall provide notice of the scoping meeting to:
(a) Any county or city that borders on a county or city within which the project is located,
unless the City has a specific agreement to the contrary with that county or city;
(b) Any Responsible Agency;
(c) Any public agency that has jurisdiction by law over the project; and
(d) Any organization or individual who has filed a written request for the notice.
SACUTB12006\CITY�22869.3 %-2 OBest Best & Krieger L.t,P
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia �mironm4nta1944�1��Y AGt (t0061
$nvironmental lmvact Reoq�
A Responsible Agency or other public agency shall only make comments regarding those
activities within its area of expertise or which are required to be carried out or approved by it.
These comments must be supported by specific documentation. Any mitigation measures
submitted to-the-Eit� b� a Responsibl�or-Trustee Ageney-$hal�-be lirr�ted�-to meast�res w�i�e�---------
mitigate impacts to resources which are within the Responsible or Trustee Agency's authority.
For projects where federal involvement might require preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement ("EIS") under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the City as
Lead Agency shall consult with the appropriate federal agencies as provided in Section 15110
and Sections 15220-15228 of the State Guidelines. In addition, the City shall notify the
appropriate federal agencies regarding any scoping meetings for praposed projects that require
preparation of an EIS.
7.06 EARLY CONSULTATION ON PROJECTS INVOLVING PERMIT ISSUANCE.
Where the project involves issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate or other
entitlement for use by one or more public agencies, the City, upon request of the applicant, shall
meet with the applicant prior to the filing of the application regarding the range of actions,
potential alternatives, mitigation measures and significant effects to be analyzed in depth in the
EIR. The City may also consult with concerned persons identified by the applicant and persons
who have made written requests to be consulted. Such requests must be made not later than
thirty (30) days after the City's decision to prepare an EIR.
7.07 CONSULTATION WITH WATER AGENCIES REGARDING LARGE DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS.
Under specific circumstances, the City must consult with the public water system which
will supply the project to determine whether it can adequately supply the water needed for the
project. See Guidelines Section 5.15 for more information on these requirements.
7.08 AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN.
When the City prepares an EIR for a project within the boundaries of a comprehensive
airport land use plan or, if such a plan has not been adopted for a project within two (2} nautical
miles of a public airport or public use airport, the City shall utilize the Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook published by CalTrans' Division of Aeronautics to assist in the preparation
of the EIR relative to potential airport or related safety hazards and noise problems.
7.09 GENERAL ASPECTS OF AN EIR.
Both a Draft and Final EIR must contain the information outlined in Guidelines Secdon
7.13. Each element must be covered, and when elements are not separated into distinct sections,
the document must state where in the document each element is covered.
The body of the EIR shall include summarized technical data, maps, diagrams and similar
relevant information. Highly technical and specialized analyses and data should be included in
appendices. Appendices may be prepared in separate volumes, but must be equally available to
the public for examination. All documents used in preparation of the EIR must be referenced.
SACUTB�006\CtfY122869.3 %-3 �Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Ouality ACt (20061
Environmental Imnact Ren�
An EIR shall not include "trade secrets," locations of archaeological sites and sacred lands, or
any other information subject to the disclosure restrictions of the Public Records Act
(Government Code Section 6250, et seq.).
. . - - - -._. .
- � -- - - -- - - - - -- - -
The EIR should discuss environmental effects in proportion to their severity and
probability of occunence. Effects dismissed in the Initial Study as cleazly insignificant and
unlikely to occur need not be discussed.
The Initial Study should be used to focus the EIR so that the EIR identifies and discusses
only the specific environmental problems or aspects of the project which have been identified as
potentially significant or important. A copy of the Initial Study shall be attached to the EIR to
provide a basis for limiting the impacts discussed.
The EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reason for determining that
various effects of a project that could possibly be considered significant were not found to be
significant and consequently were not discussed in detail in the EIR. The City should also note
any conclusion by it that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation.
The EIR should omit unnecessary descriptions of projects and emphasize feasible
mitigation measures and alternatives to projects.
7.10 USE OF REGISTERED CONSULTANTS IN PREPARING EIRS.
An EIR is not a technical document that can be prepared only by a registered consultant
or professional. However, state statutes may provide that only registered professionals can
prepare certain technical studies which will be used in or which will control the detailed design,
construction, or operation of the proposed project and which will be prepared in support of an
EIR.
7.11 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE.
An EIR may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document which is a
matter of public record or is generally available to the public. Any incorporated document shall
be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the EIR. When all or part of another
document is incorporated by reference, that document shall be made available to the public for
inspection at the City's offices. The EIR shall state where incorporated documents will be
available for inspection.
When an EIR uses incorporation by reference, the incorporated part of the referenced.
document shall be briefly summarized, if possible, or briefly described if the data or information
cannot be summarized. The relationship between the incorporated document and the EIR shall
be described. When information from an EIR that has previously been reviewed through the
state review system ("State Clearinghouse") is incorporated by the City, the state identification
number of the incorporated document should be included in the summazy or text of the EIR.
7.12 STANDARDS FOR ADEQUACY OF AN EIR.
An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision
SACVT6�2Q06\CITY�2869.3 7-4 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia F,�►viroamental Oualitv ACt (2006) Environmental Imnact Rep�rt
�� makers with information which enables them to make a decision which takes into account the
environmental consequences of the project. The evaluation of environmental effects need not be
exhaustive, but must be within the scope of what is reasonably feasible. The EIR should be
written and presented in such a way that�i�--can b�understflod by governmental-decision make�s- -- -
and members of the public. A good faith effort at completeness is necessary. The adequacy of
an EIR is assessed in terms of what is reasonable in light of factors such as the magnitude of the
project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and the geographic scope of the
project. CEQA dces not require a Lead Agency to conduct every test or perform all research,
study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters, but CEQA does require
the Lead Agency to make a good faith, reasoned response to timely comments raising significant
environmental issues.
There is no need to unreasonably delay adoption of an EIR in order to include results of
studies in progress, even if those studies will shed some additional light on subjects related to the
project.
7.13 FORM AND CONTENT OF EIR.
The text of the EIR should normally be less than 150 pages. For proposals of unusual
scope or complexity, the EIR may be longer than 150 pages but should normally be less than 300
pages. The required contents of an EIR are set forth in Sections 15122 through 15132 of the
State Guidelines. In brief, the EIR must contain:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d}
(e)
(�
(g)
A table of contents or an index.
A brief summary of the proposed project and its environmental impacts.
A description of the proposed project, including its underlying purpose and a list of
permit and other approvals required to implement the project. (See Guidelines Section
7.17 regarding analysis of future project expansion.}
A description of the project's physical environmental conditions from both a local and
regional perspective at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, or if no Notice of
Preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis begins. (State Guidelines
Section 15125.) This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical
conditions by which the City determines whether an impact is significant. However, the
City may choose any baseline that is appropriate as long as the City's choice of baseline
is supported by substantial evidence.
A discussion of any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general
and regional plans.
A description of the direct and indirect significant environmental impacts of the proposed
project explaining which, if any, can be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance,
indicating reasons that various possible significant effects were determined not to be
significant and denoting any significant effects which are unavoidable or could not be
mitigated to a level of insignificance. Direct and indirect significant effects shall be
clearly identified and descrihed, giving due consideration to both short-term and long-
term effects.
An analysis of a range of alternatives to the proposed project which could feasibly attain
the project's objectives as discussed in Guidelines Section 7.16.
SACl1TB�2006\CITY�22869.3 %-5 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv ACt (2006)
Environmental lmoact Ren�t
(h) A description of any significant irreversible environmental changes which would be
involved in the proposed action should it be implemented if, and only if, the EIR is being
prepared in connection with:
- -- ---- - - --- - - --- -- - - -- - -
(1) The adoption, amendment, or enactment of a plan, policy, or ordinance of
a public agency;
(2) The adoption by a Local Agency Formation Commission of a resolution
making determinations; or
(3) A project which will be subject to the requirement for preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act.
(i)
�)
(k)
(1)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(P)
An analysis of the growth-inducing impacts of the proposed action. The discussion
should include ways in which the project could foster economic or population growth, or
the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding
environment.
A discussion of any significant, reasonably anticipated future developments and the
cumulative effects of all proposed and anticipated action as discussed in Guidelines
Section 7.17.
In certain situations, a regional analysis should be completed for certain impacts, such as
air quality.
A discussion of any economic or social effects, to the extent that they cause or may be
used to determine significant environmental impacts.
A statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a
project were determined not to be significant and, therefore, were not discussed in the
EIR.
The identity af all federal, state or local agencies or other organizations and private
individuals consulted in preparing the EIR, and the identity of the persons, firm or agency
preparing the EIR, by contract or other authorization. To the fullest extent possible, the
City should integrate CEQA review with these related environmental review and
consultation requirements.
A discussion of those potential effects of the proposed project on the environment which
the City has determined are or may be significant. The discussion on other effects may
be limited to a brief explanation as to why those effects are not potentially significant.
A description of feasible measures, as set forth in Guidelines Section 7.15, which could
minimize significant adverse impacts.
7.14 ANALYSIS OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.
An EIR must discuss cumulative impacts when the project's incremental effect is
"cumulatively considerable" as defined in Guidelines Section 10.10. When the City is
examining a project with an incremental effect that is not "cumulatively considerable," it need
not consider that effect significant, but must briefly describe the basis for this conclusion. A
project's contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to
implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure designed to alleviate the cumulative
SACUTB�2006\Ci7'Y1�2869.3 7-f) �Best Best & Krieger LLP
I.ocal Guidelines for Implemenang the
California Envjronrr�ntal Oualiry A�( {rQQ¢) �nvironmental Impact R
impact. The City must identify facts and analysis supporting its conclusion that the cumulative
impact is less than significant.
{a) ---A cumi�lative-ir�pac�-�onsists of ar� impact wi�ich- is� created-as-a--result of the-combination_ ___ ._
of the project evaluated in �the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts.
An EIR should not discuss impacts which do not result in part from the project evaluated
in the EIR.
(b) The discussion of cumulative impacts in an EIR must focus on the cumulative impact to
which the identified other projects contribute, rather than the attributes of other projects
which do not contribute to the cumulative impact. The discussion of significant
cumulative impacts must meet either of the following elements:
(1) A list of past, present, and probable future projects causing related or
cumulative impacis including, if necessazy, those projects outside the
control of the City; or
(2) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan ar related
planning document, or in a prior environmental document that was
adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or areawide
conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.
(c) When utilizing a list, as suggested above, factors to consider when deternuning whether
to include a related project should include the nature of each environmental resource
being examined and the location and type of project. Location may be important, for
example, when water quality impacts are involved since projects outside the watershed
would probably not contribute to a cumulative effect. Project type may be important, for
example, when the impact is specialized, such as a particular air pollutant or mode of
traffic.
(d) The City should define the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect
and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic limitation used.
(e) A cumulative impacts discussion contained in previously certified E1Rs may be
incorporated by reference pursuant to the provisions for tiering and program EIlts.
7.15 ANALYSIS OF MITIGATION MEASURES.
The discussion of mitigation measures in an EIR must distinguish between measures
proposed by project proponents and other measures proposed by Lead, Responsible or Trust
Agencies. This discussion shall identify mitigation measures for each significant environmental
effect identified in the EIR.
Where several measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be disclosed and
the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. Formulation of mitigation
measures should not be deferred until some future time. However, measures may specify
performance standards which would mitigate the significant effects of the project and which may
be accomplished in more than one specified way.
If a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those
that would be caused by the project as proposed, the effects of the mitigation measure shall be
SACUTB120061CITY122869.3 7-% �Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implernenting the
California k:nviranmental pua►ity Act (:006)
disclosed but in less detail than the significant effects of the project itself.
� ,
If a project includes a housing development, the City may not reduce the project's
proposed number_ of housing _ units as a mitigation measure or project _ alternative _if the_ City_ _
determines that there is another feasible specific mitigation measure or project alternative that
would provide a comparable level of mitigation without reducing the number of housing units.
Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or
other legally binding instruments. In the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulating, or
other public project, mitigation measures can be incorporated into the plan, policy, regulation, or
project design. Mitigation measures must also be consistent with all applicable constitutional
requirements such as the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standazds.
Where maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation,
conservation or reconstruction of the historical resource will be conducted in a manner consistent
with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with
Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings
(1995), Weeks and Grimmer, the project's impact on the historical resource shall generally be
considered mitigated below a level of significance and thus not significant.
The City should, whenever feasible, seek to avoid damaging effects on any historical
resource of an archaeological nature. The following factors rnust be considered and discussed in
an EIR for a project involving an archaeological site:
(a)
(b)
Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological
sites.
Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, the following:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites;
Incorporation of sites within parks, green space, or other open spaces;
Covering the archaeological sites with a layer of chemically stable soil
before building tennis courts, parking lots, or similar facilities on the site;
Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.
When data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation,
plan, which makes provision for adequately recovering the scientificall
information from and about the historical resource, shall be prepared and a
excavation. Such studies must be deposited with the California Historical Res
Information Center.
a data recovery
y consequential
dopted prior to
ources Regional
Data recovery shall not be required for a historical resource if the City deternunes that
existing testing or studies have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information
from and about the archaeological or historical resource, provided that the determination is
documented in the EIR and that the studies are deposited with the California Historical
Resources Regional Information Center.
Environmental Imoact Re�
SACUTB120061CTTY122869.3 %-g OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implernenting the
Califomia �nvirqr�m�n�l Q4�r�1�tY ACt t?,�06?
i 7.16 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVFS IN AN EIR.
�nviror�mental Imnact Req�
The alternatives analysis must describe and evaluate the comparative merits of a range of
reasonable al�€�natives to tl�e p�ojec� �-to the �ocat,ion-of-the- pr�ject-uJhich--.u�ould_feasib�}� attain--_-. _... _
most of the basic objectives of the project, but which would avoid or substantially lessen any of
the significant effects of the project. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to
a project, and it need not consider alternatives which are infeasible. Rather, it must consider a
reasonable range of potentially �feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making
and public participation.
Purpose of the Alternatives Analysis: An EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid
the significant effects that a project may have on the environment. For this reason, a discussion
of alternatives must focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of
avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effect of the project, even if these alternatives
would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly.
Selection of a Range of Reasonable Alternatives: The range of potential alternatives to
the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic
purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant
effects, even if those alternatives would be more costly or would impede to some degree the
attainment of the project's objectives. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting
the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were
considered by the City and rejected as infeasible during the scoping process, and briefly explain
the reasons for rejection. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives should be
included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate
alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (a) failure to meet most of the basic
project objectives; (b) infeasibility; or (c) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.
Evaluation of Alternatives: The EIR shall include sufficient information about each
alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed project.
A matrix displaying the major characteristics and significant environmental effects of each
alternative may be used to summarize the comparison. If an alternative would cause one or more
significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the
significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed but in less detail than the significant
effects of the project as proposed.
The Rule of Reason: The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a"rule
of reason" which courts have held means that an alternatives discussion must be reasonable in
scope and content. Therefore, the EIR must set forth only those alternatives necessary to pernut
public participation, informed decision-making, and a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be
limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the
project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones the City deternunes
could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. An EIR need not consider an
alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote
and speculative.
Feasibility of Alternatives: The factors that may be taken into account when addressing
SACU7B12006\C1Tri22869.3 %-9 OBest Best & Krieger L.LP
Locat Guidelines fo� Implementing the
�]j,fomia Environmental Ouality Act (20061
.� • u: _ .. : �..,i
the feasibility of alternatives include: site suitability; economic viability; availability of
infrastructure; general plan consistency; other plans or regulatory limitations; jurisdictional
boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context);
and whether the�roponent already_owns the alternative site or_can reasonably_acguire, control„or. __ _
otherwise have access to the site. No one factor establishes a fixed limit on the scope of
reasonable alternatives.
Alternative Locations: The first step in the alternative location analysis is to determine
whether any of the significant effects of the project could be avoided or substantially lessened by
putting the project in another location. This is the key question in this analysis. Only locations
that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be
considered for inclusion in the EIR.
The second step in this analysis is to deternune whether any of the alternative locations
aze feasible. If the City concludes that no feasible alternative locations exist, it must disclose its
reasons, and it should include them in the EIlZ. Where a previous document has sufficiendy
analyzed a range of reasonable alternative locations and environmental impacts for a project with
the same basic purpose, the City should review the previous document. To the extent the
circumstances have remained substantially the same with respect to an alternative, the EIR may
rely on the previous document to help it assess the feasibility of the potential project alternative.
The "No Project" Alternative: The specific alternative of "no project" must be
evaluated along with its impacts. The purpose of describing and analyzing the no project
alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project
with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The no project alternative analysis,
therefore, is normally not the baseline for deternuning whether the proposed praject's
environmental impacts may be signifcant. The no project alternative will be the baseline only if
it is identical to the existing environmental setting and the City has chosen the existing
environmental setting as the baseline.
A discussion of the "no project" alternative should proceed along one of two lines:
(a) When the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy or
ongoing operation, the "no project" alternative will be the continuation of the existing
plan, policy or operation into the future. Typically, this is a situation where other projects
initiated under the existing plan will continue while the new plan is developed. Thus, the
projected impacts of the proposed plan or alternative plans would be compared to the
impacts that would occur under the existing plan; or
(b) If the project is other than a land use or regulatory plan, for example a development
project on identifiable property, the "no project" altemative is the circumstance under
which the project dces not proceed. This discussion would compare the environmental
effects of the property remaining in its existing state against environmental effects which
would occur if the project is approved. If disapproval of the project would result in
predictable actions by others, such as the proposal of some other project, this "no project"
consequence should be discussed.
After defining the "no project" alternative, the City should proceed to analyze the impacts
SAG1J7'8�20061CITY�22869.3 %- � Q �Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmentll Qua�itY Act (zQQ() �nvironmental Imoact Reoo�
( of the "no project" alternative by projecting what would reasonably be expected to occur in the
foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with
available infrastructure and community services. If the "no project" alternative is the
environmentai�y- st�perior- alternative, the EIR must also - identify anothe� environmenta113� -----
superior alternative among the remaining alternatives.
Remote or Speculative Alternatives: An EIR need not consider an alternative whose
effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.
7.17 ANALYSIS UF �JTURE EXPANSION.
An EIR must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion (or
other similar future modifications) if there is credible and substantial evidence that:
(a) The future expansion or action is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial
project; and
(b) The future expansion or action is likely to change the scope or nature of the initial project
or its environmental effects.
Absent these two circumstances, future expansion of a project need not be discussed.
CEQA does not require speculative discussion of future development which is unspecific or
uncertain. However, if future action is not considered now, it must be considered and
�
environmentally evaluated before it is actually implemented.
�
7.1$ NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF DRAFI' EIR.
Upon completion of a Draft EIR, Staff shall file a Notice of Completion (Form "H") with
the Office of Planning and Research in a printed hard copy or in electronic form on a diskette or
by electronic mail transmission. The City is encouraged to make copies of filed notices available
in electronic format an the Internet. Such electronic postings are in addition to the procedures
required by the CEQA Guidelines and the Public Resources Code. The Notice shall contain a
brief description of the proposed project, the location of the proposed project, current land use,
development type and project issues discussed in the EIR.
The City shall provide public notice of the completion of a Draft EIlZ at the same time it
sends a Notice of Completion to the Office of Planning and Research. The Notice of
Availability of Draft EIR (Form "K") shall specify the period during which comments will be
received on the Draft EIlZ, the date, time and place of any public hearings on the proposed
project, a brief description of the project and its location, the significant effects on the
environment, if any, anticipated as a result of the project, and the address where copies of the
Draft EIR and all documents referenced in the Draft EIR are available for review. (For
calculation of the public review period, see Guidelines Section 7.22.) Public agencies are
encouraged to make copies of filed Notices of Completion available in electronic format on the
Internet.
Notice shall be given to the last known name and address of all organizations ar�d
individuals who have previously requested it. In addition, notice shall be given by at least one of
the following procedures:
SACUTB12006\CI'I'Y122869.3 %-1 1 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
L.ocal Guidelines for Implemendng the
Califomia Environmencal Oualitv Ac� (24Q6) Env+ronmental lmnact Re�
(a) Publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the
proposed project. If more than one azea will be affected, the notice shall be published in
the newspaper of largest circulation from among the newspapers of general circulation in
those areas; _
-- -- - --------- -. . _ _._., - - ---- - -------- --
(b) Posting of notice on and off site in the area where the project is to be located; or
(c) Direct mailing to owners and occupants of property contiguous to the project, as
identified on the latest equalized assessment roll.
The Notice shall be posted in the office of the Clerk in each county in which the project is
located for at least thirty (30) days. The City may wish to leave the Notice posted until the
public review period for the Draft EIR has expired. The Clerk must post the Notice within
twenty-four (24) hours of receipt. Notice shall be mailed to any persan who has filed a written
request with the City. The City may require these requests to be renewed annually and may
chazge a fee for the reasonable cost of providing this service. A project will not be invalidated
due to a failure to send a requested notice provided there has been substantial compliance with
these notice provisions.
Copies of the Draft EIR shall also be made available at the City office for review by
members of the general public. Any person obtaining a copy of the Draft EIR shall reimburse
the City for the actual cost of its reproduction. Copies of the Draft EIR should also be furnished
to appropriate public library systems.
7.19 SUBMISSION OF DRAFT EIR TO STATE CLEARINGHOUSE.
A Draft EIR must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies in
the following situations:
(a) The Draft EIR is prepared by a Lead Agency which is a state agency.
(b) A state agency is a Responsible Agency, Trustee Agency, or otherwise has jurisdiction by
law over resources potentially affected by the project.
(c) The Draft EIR is for a project identified in State Guidelines Section 15206 as being
examples of statewide, regional, or azeawide significance.
State Guidelines Section 15206 identifies the following types of projects as being
examples of projects of statewide, regional, or areawide significance which require submission to
the State Clearinghouse for circulation:
• General plans, elements, or amendments for which an EIR was prepared.
• Projects which have the potential for causing significant environmental effects
beyond the city or county where the project would be located, such as:
• Residential development of more than 500 units.
• Commercial projects employing more than 1,000 persons or covering
more than 500,000 sguare feet of floor space.
• Office building projects employing more than 1,000 persons or covering
more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.
• Hotel or motel development of more than 500 rooms.
SACUTB�2006\CTTY�228693 %-I Z �Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guideli�s for Implementing the
California Environnnental Oualltv ACt (2�44) Environmental lmoact Reoo�
(; • Industrial projects housing more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than
40 acres of land, or covering more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.
• Projects for the cancellation of a Williamson Act contract covering more than 100
--- - - ----- -- �
- - -- - -- - - --- - -- - - - - — ---- --
- acre�. --- -- -- - - - — - - ----- ---- -- - - - _ _
• Projects in one of the following Environmentally Sensitive Areas:
• Lake Tahoe Basin.
• Santa Monica Mountains Zone.
• Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
• Suisun Marsh.
• Coastal Zone, as defined by the California Coastal Act.
• Areas within one-quarter mile of a river designated as wild and scenic.
• Areas within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission.
• Projects which would affect sensitive wildlife habitats or the habitats of any rare,
threatened, or endangered species.
• Projects which would interfere with water quality standards.
• Projects which would provide housing, jobs, or occupancy for 500 or more people
within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant.
A Draft EIl2 may be submitted to the State Clearinghouse where a state agency has
special expertise with regazd to the environmental impacts involved.
Where the Draft EIR will be reviewed through the State review process handled by the
State Clearinghouse, a Notice of Completion (Form "H") should be used as a cover sheet. If the
City uses the State Clearinghouse's online process to submit the Notice of Comgletion form, the
form generated on the Internet site satisfies the State Clearinghouse's requirements.
A sufficient number of copies of the documents must be sent to the State Cleazinghouse
for circulation. Staff should contact the State Clearinghouse to find out the correct number of
printed copies required for circulation. In addition to the printed copies, a copy of the documents
in electronic format shall be submitted on a diskette or by electronic mail transmission if
available.
Submission of the Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse affects the timing of the public
review period as set forth in Guidelines Section 7.22.
7.20 SPECIAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE AND FUEL BURNING PROJECTS.
For any waste burning project, as defined in Guidelines Section 5.10, Notice of
Completion shall be given to all organizations and individuals who have previously requested
notice. In addition, Notice shall be given by direct mailing to the owners and occupants of
property within one-fourth mile of any parcel or parcels on which such a project is located.
7.21 REVIEW OF DRAFT EIR $Y OTHER AGENCIES AND PERSONS.
Upon the filing and posting of a Notice of Completion, Staff shall consult with and obtain
comments from each Responsible Agency, Trustee Agency, and any other public agency having
SACUTB�20061CTfY�22869.3 %- � 3 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (,20061 Environmental Imoact Rep,Q�
jurisdiction by law over resources which may be affected by the project including water agencies
consulted pursuant to Guidelines Section 7.07. Those public agencies having jurisdiction by law
over the project shall include, but are not necessarily limited to:
- ---_ ._. . _.. -- - ---- ---- --
(1) Any city or county bordering the project area;
(2) Transportation planning agencies and public agencies with transportation
facilities located within the project area; and
(3) The State Department of Water Resources, when a project is located
within one mile of a facility of the State Water Resources Development
System.
Staff may also consult with and obtain comments from any person known to have special
expertise whose comments relative to the Draft EIR would be desirable. Staff may also consult
with any member of the public who has filed a written request for notice with the City Clerk and
any person whom the project applicant believes will be concerned with the environmental effects
of the project.
When a redevelopment agency establishes or amends its redevelopment plan and the
project area contains land in agricultural use, the agency shall also send a copy of the Draft ElR
to those specific agricultural and farm agencies and organizations as required by Health and
Safety Code Section 33333.3.
7.22 TnvtE FoR R.Ev�w OF Dx�FT EIR; FAILURE TO COMMENT.
A period of between thirty {30) and sixty (b0) days from the filing of the Notice of
Completion of the Draft EIR shall be allowed for review of and comment on the Draft EIR,
except in unusual situations. If a state agency is a Responsible Agency, or if the Draft EIR is
submitted to the State Clearinghouse, the review period shall be at least forty-five (45) days. The
review period begins (day one) on the date that the State Clearinghouse distributes the Draft EIR
to state agencies. The State Clearinghouse is required to distribute the Draft EIR to state
agencies within three working days from the date the State Clearinghouse receives the document,
as long as the Draft EIR is complete when submitted to the State Clearinghouse. If the document
submitted to the State Clearinghouse is not complete, the State Clearinghouse must notify the
Lead Agency. The review period for the public and all other agencies may run concurrently with
the state agency review period established by the State Clearinghouse, but when a Draft EIR is
submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review, the public review period shall be at least as long
as the period of review established by the State Clearinghouse.
A shorter review period of the Draft EIR by the State Clearinghouse can be requested by
the City; however, a shortened review period shall not be less than thirty (30) days for a Draft
EIR. Any request for a shortened review period must be made in writing by the City to the
Office of Planning and Research. The City may designate a person to make these requests.
A shortened review period is not available for any proposed project of statewide, regional
or areawide environmental significance as determined pursuant to State Guidelines Section
15206. Any approval of a shortened review period shall be given prior to, and reflected in, the
SACUT6�2d)06\CI'fY\22869.3 7-14 OBest Best & Krieger � r.p
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Env;ronmencal Opa��tv Act (2Q04?
� public notices.
Environmental Imnact Renq�
In the event a public agency, group, or person whose comments on a Draft EIR are
- solicited fails to-cvr3u�rier�t wi�hin the required tirrie period;-it shall be presumed that such- agency, -
group, or person has no comment to make, unless the Lead Agency has received a written
request for a speciiic extension of time for review and comment and a statement of reasons for
the request.
Continued planning activities concerning the proposed project, short of formal approval,
may continue during the period set aside for review and comment on the Draft EIR.
7.23 PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT EIR.
The Draft EIR should be used as the outline for discussion at the public hearing. If a
public hearing is held, it shall be conducted at least fourteen (14) days after the filing of the
Notice of Completion, but in no event after the time set for expiration of the comment period.
A public hearing on the Draft EIIZ document is not required by CEQA but may be held
by the decision-making body either in separate proceedings or in conjunction with other
proceedings of the City. The procedures for the manner of conducting the public hearings shall
be described at the time the hearing convenes.
Public notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be posted in a conspicuous
( location at City Hall and published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City at least
fourteen (14) days in advance of the hearing. The Notice also shall indicate the locations at
which the Draft EIR is available for review. To the extent that the City maintains an Internet
web site, notice of all public hearings should be made available in electronic format on that site.
7.24 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR.
The City as Lead Agency shall evaluate any comments on environmental issues received
during the public review period for the Draft EIR and shall prepare a written response to those
comments. As stated below, the City should also consider evaluating and responding to any
comments received after the public review period. The response of the City may take the form
of a revision of the Draft EIR, an attachment to the Draft EIR, or some other oral or written
response which is adequate under the circumstances of the project. The response must describe
the disposition of any significant environmental issues raised in the comment, such as revisions
to the proposed project which mitigate anticipated impacts or objections. If the City's position is
at variance with specific recommendations or suggestions raised in the comment, the City's
response must detail the reasons why such recommendations or suggestions were not accepted.
Moreover, the City shall respond to any specific suggestions for project alternatives or mitigation
measures for significant impacts, unless such alternatives or mitigation measures are facially
infeasible. The response shall contain recommendations, when appropriate, to alter the project as
described in the Draft EIR as a result of an analysis of the comments received.
Comments submitted via email shall be treated as written comments for all purposes.
Comments sent to the public agency via email are deemed received when they actually arrive in
an email account of a staff person who has been designated or identified as the point of contact
SACVTB�006�CTTY�22869.3 i-15 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califania Environmental Qu,11►N ACt �?Q441
for a particular project.
Environmental Impact
At least ten (10) days prior to certifying a Final EIR, the City shall provide its proposed
written response_to_ any public agency_ which_has made comments on the Draft EIR..._The_ Citkis _
not required to respond to comments received after the public review period. However, the City
should consider responding to all comments if it will not delay action on the Final EIR, since any
comment received before final action on the EIR can form the basis of a legal challenge. A
written response which refutes the comment or adequately explains the City's action in light of
the comment, will assist the City in defending against a legal challenge.
7.25 PREPARATION AND CONTENTS OF FINAL EIR.
Following the receipt of any comments on the Draft EIR as required herein, such
coinments shall be evaluated by Staff and a Final EIR shall be prepared.
The Final EIR shall meet all requirements of Guidelines Sections 7.12 and 7.13 and shall
consist of the Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft, a section containing either verbatim or in
summary the comments and recommendations received through the review and consultation
process, a list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the Draft, and a
section containing the responses of the City to the significant environmental points raised in the
review and consultation process.
7.26 RECIRCULATION WHEN NEW INFORMATION IS ADDED TO EIR.
When significant new information is added to the EIR after notice and consultation, but
before certification, the City recirculate the Draft EIR for another public review period. The
term "information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as
additional data or other information.
New information is significant only when the EIR is chariged in a way that would deprive
the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental
effect of a project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect, including a feasible
project alternative, that the project proponents decline to implement. Recirculation is required,
for example, when:
(1) new information added to an EIR discloses:
(a) a new significant environmental impact resulting from the project
or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented,
(b} a significant increase in the severity of an environmental impact
(unless mitigation measures are also adopted that reduce the
impact to a level of insignificance), or
(c) a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure that clearly
would lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project,
but which the project proponents decline to adopt; or
(2) the Draft EIR is so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory
in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
SACUTB120061C1TY�22869.3 %-16 �Best Best & Kriega I l.p
Local Guidelines fo� Unplementing the
California Envir4ptr�en(�1 Qua]j4y qct {tO94)
Environmental Imoact Rezx�r4
(� Recirculation is not required when the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies
or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. If the revision is limited to
a few chapters or portions of the EIR, the City as Lead Agency need only recirculate the chapters
- - or porti�ns that have-�eerr modiiied� A decision- to not �ecir�u�ate an EIR must be supporEed b� -- --
substantial evidence in the record.
When the City deternunes to recirculate a Draft EIR, it shall give Notice of Recirculation
(Form "M") to every agency, person, or organization that commented vn the priar Draft EIR.
The Notice of Recirculation must indicate whether new comments must be submitted and
whether the City has exercised its discretion to require reviewers to limit their comments to the
revised chapters or portions of the recirculated EIR. The City shall also consult again with those
persons contacted pursuant to Guidelines Section 7.18 before certifying the EIR. When the EIR
is substantially revised and the entire EIR is recirculated, the City may require that reviewers
submit new comments and need not respond to those comments received during the earlier
circulation period. In those cases, the City should advise reviewers that although their previous
comments remain part of the administrative record, the final EIR will not provide a written
response to those comments, and new comments on the revised EIR must be submitted. The
City need only respond to those comments submitted in response to the revised EIR.
When the EIR is revised only in part and the City is recirculating only the revised
chapters or portions of the EIR, the City may request that reviewers limit their comments to the
revised chapters or portions. The City need only respond to: (1) comments received during the
initial circulation period that relate to chapters or portions of the document that were not revised
and recirculated, and (2) comments received during the recirculation period that relate to the
chapters or portions of the earlier EIR that were revised and recirculated.
When recirculating a revised EIR, either in whole or in part, the City must, in the revised
EIR or by an attachment to the revised EIR, summarize the revisions made to the previously
circulated draft EIR.
7.27 CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR.
Following the preparation of the Final EIR, Staff shall review the Final EIR and make a
recommendation to the City Council regarding whether the Final EIR is in order and whether it
has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State Guidelines and the City's Guidelines.
The Final EIR and Staff recommendation shall then be presented to the City Council. The City
Council shall independently review and analyze the Final EIR and determine whether the Final
EIR reflects its independent judgment. The City Council shall certify and find that: (1) the Final
EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State Guidelines and the City's
Guidelines; (2) the City Council has reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR before approving the
project; and (3} the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City .
7.2H CONSIDERATION OF EIR BEFORE APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF PROJECT.
The EIR shall be reviewed and considered by the decision-making body before it
approves or disapproves the proposed project for which the EIR was prepared. The decision-
rnaking body may then proceed to consider the proposed project for purposes of approval or
SACUTB�2006\C1TY�23869.3 %-1 % OBest Best & Krieger LLP
l..ocal Guidelines for Implementing the
C�'fomia Environmental Oualiri Act {�qp()
Environmental Imoact Re�
disapproval. Separately or in conjunction with its action approving or disapproving the project, �
the decision-making body shall certify that it has reviewed and considered the information
contained in the EIR. When the City has charged a non-elected body with responsibility for
adoptingz certi�ing, or authorizing environmental documents, .the City_ shall_have_..a_grQ�edure._ _._.
that allows the appeal of the CEQA decisions to the City Council. See Guidelines Section 2.03.
7.29 FINDINGS.
The decision-making body shall not approve or carry out a project if a completed EIR
identifies at least one significant effect of the project unless it makes one or more of the
following written findings for each such significant effect, accompanied by a statement of the
facts supporting each finding. Findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(a)
(b)
(c)
That changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment, and which are fully
enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. These mitigation
measures must be expressly adopted or rejected in the EIR. There should be a description
of the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures. Passing references to
mitigation measures in other sections of the EIR, or in a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, are not sufficient.
That such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the City. Such changes have been, or can and should be, adopted
by that other agency.
That specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR. The
decision-making body must make specific written findings stating why it has rejected an
alternative to the project as infeasible.
If any of the proposed alternatives could avoid or lessen an adverse impact for which no
mitigation measures are progosed, the City shall analyze the feasibility of such alternative(s). If
the project is to be approved without including such alternative(s), the City shall find that
specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including considerations
for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
alternatives identified in the Final EIR and shall list such considerations before such approval.
The decision-making body shall not approve or carry out a project as proposed unless (1)
the project as approved will not have a significant effect on the environment or (2) its significant
environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened (as determined through one
or more of the findings indicated above), and any remaining, unavoidable significant effects have
been found acceptable because of facts and circumstances described in a Statement of Overriding
Considerations (see Guidelines Section 7.31). Statements in the Draft EIR or comments on the
Draft EIR are not determinative of whether the project will have significant effects.
When making the findings required by subdivision (a) of this section, the City as Lead
Agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which
constitute the record of proceedings upon which it based its decision.
SAC1]TB�2006\CI'M228693
7-18
OBest Best & Krieger LLP
�
f.
I,oca] Guidelines for Implementing the
Californi� F�vjrqn�e�1(�l Qp�1jSy {�c4 {�444) Environmental Impact Rep�
7.30 SPECIAL FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR FACILITIES WHICH MAY EMIT HAZARDOUS AIR
EMISSIONS NEAR SCHOOLS.
---Spee�l-pr�d��a�--rules agply -to- prajects -inv�lving-t�e- construction--or- alteration of�__._.
facility within one-quarter mile of a school when: .(1) the facility might reasonably be
anticipated to emit hazardous air emissions or to handle an extremely hazardous substance or a
mixture containing extremely hazardous substances in a quantity equal to or greater than the
threshold specified in Health and Safety Code Section 25532(j}, and (2) the emissions or
substances may impose a health or safety hazazd to persons who would attend or would be
employed at the school. If the project meets both of those criteria, the City may not certify an
EIIt or approve a Negative Declaration unless both of the following occur:
(a) The City, as Lead Agency, consulted with the school district or districts having
jurisdiction over the school regarding the potential impact of the project on the school;
and
(b) The school district was given written notification of the project not less than thirty (30)
days prior to the proposed certification of the EIR or approval of the Negative
Declaration.
7.31 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.
Whenever a project approved by the decision-making hody will cause unmitigated
significant environmental effects, the decision-making body must adopt a Statement of
Ovemding Considerations. A Statement of Overriding Considerations allows the decision-
making body to approve a project despite one or more unmitigated significant environmental
impacts identified in the Final EIR. A Statement of Overriding Considerations can be made only
if feasible project alternatives or mitigation measures do not exist to reduce the environmental
impact(s) to a level of insignificance and the benefits of the project outweigh the adverse
environmental effect(s). The feasibility of project alternatives or mitigation measures is
determined by whether the project alternative or mitigation measure can be accomplished within
a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal and
technological factors. Project benefits which are appropriate to consider include the economic,
environmental, technological and social value of the project.
Substantial evidence in the entire record must justify the decision-making body's findings
and its use of the Statement of Overriding Considerations. If the decision-making body makes a
Statement of Overriding Considerations, the statement must be included in the record of the
project approval and mentioned in the Notice of Deternunation.
7.32 MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM FOR EIR.
When making the findings required by subdivision (a) of Guidelines Section 7.29, the
City must do all of the following:
(a) adopt a reporting or monitoring program to assure that mitigation measures which are
required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment will be implemented
by the project proponent or. other responsible party in a timely manner, in accordance
with conditions of project approval; •
SACVTB�?0061C1TY�228693 i- � 9 �Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implernenting d�e
California F,�rvironmencal Qu�litv Act {'-'004)
Fnvironmencal lmoact Reo�
(b) make sure all conditions and mitigation measures are feasible and fully enforceable �
through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Such permit conditions,
agreements, and measures must be consistent with applicable constitutional requirements
such as the "nexus" and °`rough_pr�rtionalit�' standards establishecl_by..the ca�e;. and . . _ __ _ _ . .
(c) specify the location and the custodian of the documents which constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the City based its decision in the resolution certifying the EIR.
There is no requirement that the reporting or monitoring program be circulated for public
review; however, the City may choose to circulate it far public comments along with the Draft
EIR. The mitigation measures required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the
environment must be adopted as conditions of project approval.
The adequacy of a mitigation monitoring program is determined by the "rule of reason."
This means that a mitigation monitoring program dces not need to provide every imaginable
measure. It needs only to provide measures that are reasonably feasible.
This reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to assure compliance during the
implementation or construction of a project. If a Responsible Agency or Trustee Agency has
required that certain conditions be incorporated into the project, the City may request that agency
to prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. The City shall also require
that prior to the close of the public review period for a Draft EIR (see Guidelines Section 7.21),
the Responsible or Trustee Agency submit detailed performance objectives for mitigation
measures, or refer the City to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents.
Any mitigation measures submitted to the City by a Responsible or Trustee Agency shall be
limited to measures which mitigate impacts to resources which are within the Responsible or
Trustee Agency's authority.
Transportation information resulting from the reporting or monitoring program required
to be adopted by the City shall be submitted to the regional transportation planning agency where
the project is located and to the Department of Transportation for a project of statewide, regional
or azeawide significance as defined by State Guidelines Section 21506. The transportation
planning agency and the Department of Transportation are required by law to adopt guidelines
for the submittal of these reporting or monitoring programs, so the City may wish to tailor its
submittal to such guidelines.
Local agencies have the authority to levy fees sufficient to pay for this program.
Therefore, the City will chazge the project proponent a fee to cover actual costs of program
processing and implementation.
0
The City may delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to an agency or to a
private entity which accepts the delegation; however, until mitigation measures have been
completed, the City remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation
measures occurs in accordance with the program.
The City may choose whether its program will monitor mitigation, report on mitigation,
or both. "Reporting" is defined as a written compliance review that is presented to the Council
or an authorized staff person. A report may be required at various stages during project
SACUTB120061CI'f1'122869.3 i-2� OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implemendng the
California $nvirq�mgnta] Qp�}j�y AFt (rQp4) ��varqnmsntal imvacc Reoort
.
I
implementation or upon completion of the mitigation measure. Reporting is suited to projects
which have readily measurable or quantitative mitigation measures or which already involve
regular review. "Monitoring" is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight.
Monitoring i�suited-�o projects- witl� �complex - mitigation measures which- ma}�- exceed- the-
expertise of the City to oversee, are expected to be implemented over a period of time, or require
careful implementation to assure compliance.
At its discretion, the City may adopt standardized policies and requirements to guide
individually adopted programs.
Standardized policies or requirements for monitoring and reporting may describe, but are
not limited to:
(a) The relative responsibilities of various departments within the City for various aspects of
the program.
(b) The responsibilities of the project proponent.
(c) Guidelines adopted by the City to govern preparation of programs.
(d) General standards for deternuning project compliance with the mitigation measures and
related conditians of approval.
(e) Enforcement procedures for noncompliance, including provisions for administrative
appeal.
(� Process for informing the Council and staff of the relative success of mitigation measures
and using those results to improve future mitigation measures.
When a project is of statewide, regional, or areawide importance, any transportation
information generated by a program must be submitted to the transportation planning agency in
the region where the project is located, as well as the Department of Transportation.
7.33 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION.
Following consideration and approval of a project for which the City is the Lead Agency,
the decision-making body shall order Staff to prepaze, certify and file, a Notice of Deternunation
(Form "F") which shall contain the following:
(a) An identification of the project by its common name,
(b) A brief description of the project.
(c) The date when the City approved the project.
(d) Whether the project in its approved form will
environment.
where possible, and its location.
have a significant effect on the
(e) A statement that an EIR was prepared and certified pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
(fj Whefher mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project.
(g) Whether findings and/or a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the
project.
(h) The address where a copy of the EIR {with comments and responses) and the record of
project approval may be examined by the general public.
The Notice of Determination shall be filed with the Clerk of each county in which the
project will be located within five (5) working days of project approval. The City is encouraged
SACVT612006�C1TY122869.3 %-i 1 �Best Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implemendng the
C i�' nvimnmental Oualitv Act (20061 EnviXonmentallmDact Re�
to make copies of filed notices available in electronic format on the Internet. Such electronic
notices are in addition to the posting requirements of the CEQA Guidelines and the Public
Resources Code.
— .. . -- -� - � ----- ---------- - -- - - --- -- - -- --- - - -----
J The Clerk must post the Notice of Determination within twenty-four (24) hours of
receipt. The Notice must be posted in the office of the Clerk for a minimum of thirty (30) days.
Simultaneously with the filing of the Notice of Determination with the Clerk, Staff shall cause a
copy of such Notice to be posted at City Hall. If the project requires discretionary approval from
a state agency, the Notice of Determination shall also be filed with the Office of Planning and
Research, within five (5) working days of project approval, along with proof of payment of the
California Department of Fish and Game fee or Certificate of Fee Exemption (see Guidelines
Section 7.36).
The Clerk must post the Notice of Determination within twenty-four (24) hours of
receipt. The Notice must be posted in the office of the Clerk for a minimum of thirty (30) days.
Thereafter, the Clerk shall return the notice to the City with a notation of the period it was
posted. The City shall retain the notice for not less than twelve (12) months. If the project
requires discretionazy approval from any State agency, the Notice of Determination shall also be
filed with the Office of Planning and Research within five (5} working days of project approval
along with proof of payment of the California Department of Fish and Game fee or Certificate of
Fee Exemption (see Guidelines Section 6.18). Simultaneously with the filing of the Notice of
Determination with the Clerk, Staff shall cause a copy of the Notice of Determination to be
posted at City Hall.
When a request is made for a copy of the Notice prior to the date on which the City
certifies the EIR, the copy must be mailed, iirst class postage prepaid, within five (5) days of the
City's determination. If such a request is made following the City's determination, then the copy
should be mailed in the same manner as soon as possible. The recipients of such documents may
be charged a fee reasonably related to the cost of providing the service.
For projects with more than one phase, Staff shall file a notice of deternunation for each
phase requiring a discretionary approval. The filing and posting of a Notice of Deternunation
with the Clerk, and, if necessazy, with the Office of Planning and Research, usually starts a thirty
(30) day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA. When separate
notices are filed for successive phases of the same overall project, the thirty (30-) day statute of
limitation to challenge the subsequent phase begins to run when the second notice is filed.
Failure to file the Notice results in a one hundred eighty (180-) day statute of limitations.
7.34 DISPOSITION OF A FINAL EIR.
The City shall file a copy of the Final EIR with the appropriate planning agency of any
city or county where significant effects on the environment may occur. The City shall also retain
one or more copies of the Final EIR as a public record for a reasonable period of time. Finally,
for private projects, the City may require that the project applicant provide a copy of the certified
Final EIR to each Responsible Agency.
SACUTB12006\CITY�22869.3 %-22 �Best Best & Krieger I.LP
Local Guidelines for Impkmenting the
Califomia Envimnmental OualiN AcS (2496)
7.35 PRIVATE PROJECT COSTS.
Envirqnmental Unnact RenQ�
For private projects, the person or entity proposing to carry out the project shall be
charged--a-� reaso�able---fee- i�- resov�r- -t�� est�mated-costs- ir�c��ed--by -t�-G�t-y-in-prEpar-i�g -
circulating, and filing the Draft and Final EIRs, as well as all publication costs incident thereto.
7.36 FILING FEES FOR PROJECTS WHICH AFFECT WILDLIFE RESOURCES.
At the time a Notice of Deternunation for an EIR is filed with the Clerk, a fee of $850
shall be paid to the Clerk for projects which will adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.
These fees are collected by the Clerk on behalf of the California Department of Fish and Game
("DFG").
Only one filing fee is required for each project unless the project is tiered or phased and
separate environmental documents are prepared. For projects where a I,ead Agency and
Responsible Agencies file separate Notices of Determination, only the Lead Agency is required
to pay the fee.
Note: Most County Clerks customarily charge a documentary handling fee for each
project in addition to the iiling fee specified above. Refer to the Index in the Staff Summary to
help deternune the correct amount.
For private projects, the City shall pass these costs on to the project applicant.
No fees are required for projects with a"de minimis" effect on fish and wildlife
resources, or for certain projects undertaken by the DFG and implemented through a contract
with a non-profit entity or local government agency. A project with a"de minimis" effect has no
potential for adverse effect on fish and wildlife. This is an important exception. DFG considers
the following projects as likely to have "de minimis" effects on fish and wildlife, depending on
the specific facts of each project:
(a) Projects which enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats and result in no accompanying
adverse impacts to fish or wildlife;
(b) Lot line adjustments;
(c) Building remodeling;
(d) Annexations;
(e) Redevelopment on existing urban subdivisions with no wildlife habitat;
( fl Iniill of undeveloped urban lots; or
(g) Adoption of a General Plan, where CEQA requires a subsequent discretionary project
approval before any physical change to natural habitat is pernutted.
If the City believes that a project will have a"de minimis" effect on wildlife resources, it
should file the Certificate of Fee Exemption attached as Form "L". This form requires the City
to set forth facts in support of the fee exemption. These facts should include: (1) the name and
address of the project proponent; (2} a brief description of the project and its location; (3) a
statement that an Initial Study has been prepared by the City to evaluate the project's effects on
wildlife resources, if any; (4) a declaration that there is no evidence before the City that the
project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources; and (5) a declazation that
SACUTB12006\C1TY1228693 %-23 �Best Best & Krieger LL.P
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Oualitv Act (2006) Environmental Imv�ct Re�
the City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect ,-
contained in the regulations. A presumption of adverse effect occurs if the project has the '
potential for adverse effects on the fish and wildlife resources listed on Form "L". To rebut the
presumption of adverse.effect, the.City should_explain_.in_the declaration �vh�.the_pr.ojeci_�voul� _.
not have an adverse impact on fish and wildlife and refer to any supporting evidence. These
findings should be made at the time of approval of the EIR and attached to Form "L" when
submitted to the County. Two copies of Form "L" must be filed with a Notice of Determination
in order to obtain the fee exemption.
If the City believes that a project has been undertaken by the DFG, that the project's costs
are payable from one or more of the sources indicated in the Fish and Game Code, and that the
project is being implemented through a contract with a non-profit entity or a local government
agency, the DFG filing fee does not apply. Since the DFG has not yet adopted regulations to
govern this exemption, including a new "Certificate of Fee Exemption," the City may wish to
use Form "L" and make appropriate modifications to reflect this exemption.
SACUTB�20061CITY1228693 7-24 BBest Best & Krieger 1 I.p
i
Local Guidelines for hnplementing the
Califomia Environrt►ental Qpaliry Act (2Q06)
8. TYPES OF EIRS
8.01 PROJEc'r EIR.
Types of EIIt's
The most common type of EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific
development project and focuses primarily on the changes in the environment that would result
from the development project. Tfiis chapter describes a number of examples of various EIRs
tailored to different situations. All EIRs must meet the content requirements summarized in
Guidelines Section 7.13.
8.02 SuBSEQuENT EIR.
A Subsequent EIR is required when a previous EIR has been prepared and certi�ed or a
Negative Declaration has been adopted for a project and at least one of the three following
situations occur:
(a) SubstantiaT changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of a
previous EIR due to the identification of new signiiicant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is to
be undertaken which will require major revisions of a previous EIR due to the
identif cation of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity. of previously identified significant effects; or
(c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known with the
exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or
the Negative Declaration was adopted, becomes available and shows any of the
following:
(1) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in a
previous EIR or Negative Declaration;
(2) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe
than shown in a previous EIl2;
(3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible are
in fact feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation
measures or alternatives; or
(4) mitigation measures or alternatives which were not considered in a
previous EIR would substantially lessen one or more significant effects on
the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation
measures or alternatives.
A Subsequent EIR must receive the same circulation and review as the previous EIR
received.
In instances where the City is evaluating a modification or revision to an existing use
SACUTB�006\C[TY122869.3 g- � OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Oualitv Act (20061 Tvoes of Eift's
permit, the City may consider only those environmental impacts related to the changes between
what was allowed under the old permit and what is requested under the new permit. Only if
these differential impacts fall within the categories described above may the City require
additional environmental review.
When the City is considering approval of a development project which is consistent with
a general plan for which an EIR was completed, another EIR is required-only if the project
causes environmental effects peculiar to the parcel which were not addressed in the prior EIR, or
which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior
EIR. -
H.O3 SUPPLEMENTAL EIR.
The City as a Lead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare a Supplemental EIR,
rather than a Subsequent EIR, if any of the conditions described in Guidelines Section 8.02
would require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR and only minor additions or changes would
be necessary to mak� the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.
To assist the City in making this determination, the decision-making body should request an
Initial Study andlor a recommendation by Staff. The Supplemental EIR need contain only the
information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised.
A Supplemental EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and public review as is given
to a Draft EIR but may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous EIR.
When the decision-making body decides whether to approve the project, it shal] consider
the previous EIIZ as revised by the Supplemental EIR. Findings pursuant to Guidelines Section
7.29 shall be made for each significant effect shown in Supplemental EIR.
8.04 ADDENDUM TO AN EIR.
The City as a Lead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare an Addendum to an
EIR, rather than a Supplement to an EIR, only if none of the conditions described in Guidelines
Section 8.02 calling for preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred and only minor technical
changes or additions to the previous environmental document are necessary. Since significant
effects on the environment were addressed by findings in the original EIR, no new findings are
required in the Addendum.
An Addendum to an EIR need not be circulated for public review but should be included
in or attached to the Final EIR. The decision-making body shall consider the Addendum with
the Final EIIZ prior to making a decision on a project. A brief explanation of the decision not to
prepare a Subsequent EIR or a Supplemental EIR should be included in the Addendum, the Lead
Agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. This explanation must be supported
by substantial evidence.
8.05 T[E�n EIR.
An Initial Study shall be prepared for the later project and used to determine whether a
Tiered EIR may be used and whether new significant effects should be examined. A Tiered EIR
SACVTB�2006\CTf'YL?2869.3 8-2 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Loca] Guidelines forlmplementing t6e .
Califomia Environmental Oualiri Act {2006) Types of Eilt's
shall be used for later projects where a prior EIR has been prepared and certified for a program,
plan, policy, or ordinance and the City determines that:
"Tiering" refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a previously
certified broader EIR in later EIlZs or Negative Declarations prepared for narrower projects. The
later EIR or Negative Declaration may incorporate by reference the general discussions from the
broader EIR and may concentrate solely on the issues speci�c to the later project.
(a) The later project is consistent with a program, plan, policy or ordinance for which an EIR
has been prepared and certi�ed; -
(b) The later project is consistent with applicable local land use plans and zoning of the city
and county in which the later project would be located; and
(c) The later project would not require a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. (See Guidelines
Sections 8.02 and 8.03.)
Tiering does not excuse the City from adequately analyzing reasonably foreseeable
significant environmental effects of a project, nor does it justify deferring analysis to a later tier
EIR or Negative Declaration. However, the level of detail contained in a first-tier EIR �need not
be greater than that of the program, plan, policy, or ordinance being analyzed. When the City is
using the tiering process in connection with an EIR for a large-scale planning approval, such as a
general plan or component thereof (e.g., an area plan or community plan), the development of
detailed, site-specific information may not be feasible. Such site-specific information can be
deferred, in many instances, until such time as the City prepares a future environmental
document in connection with a project of a more limited geographical scale, as long as deferral
does not prevent adequate identification of significant effects of the planning approval at hand.
Where a iirst-tier EIR has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or
ordinance consistent with the requirements of this section, the City should limit the EIR or
Negative Declaration on the later project to effects which:
(a) were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR; or
(b) are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by specific revisions in the project,
the imposition of conditions or other means.
When assessing whether there is a new significant cumulative effect for purposes of a
subsequent tier environmental document, the City shall consider whether the incremental effects
of the project would be considerable when viewed in the context of past, present, and probable
future projects.
The City may use only a valid CEQA document as a first-tier document. Accordingly,
the City should carefully review the first-tier environmental document to determine whether or
not the statute of limitations for challenging the document has run. If the statute of limitations
has not expired, the City should use the first-tier document with caution and pay careful attention
to the legal status of the document. If the first-tier document is subsequently invalidated by the
courts, any later environmental document may also be defective.
SACUTB\2006\CITY�2869.3 g-3 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Emironmental Qualitv Act (2006)
8.06 STAGED EIR.
Tvoes of EIR's
Where a large capital project will require a number of discretionary approvals from
governmenta] agencies and one of the approvals will occur more than two years before
construction will begin, a Staged EIR may be prepared. The Staged EIR covers the entire project
in a general form or manner. A Staged EIR should evaluate a proposal in light of cunent and
contemplated plans and produce an informed estimate of the environmental consequences of an
entire project. The particular aspect of the project before the City for approval shall be discussed
with a greater degree of specificity.
Where a Staged EIR has been prepared, a Supplement to that EIR shall be prepared when
a later approval is required for the project, and the information available at the time of the later
approval would permit consideration of additional environmental impacts, mitigation measures,
or reasonable alternatives to the project.
8.07 PRocx�M EIR.
A Program EIl2 is an EIR which may be prepared on an integrated series of actions that
are related either:
(a) Geob aphically;
(b) As logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions;
(c) In connection with the issuance of rules, regulations, plans or other general criteria to
govern the conduct of a continuing program; or
(d) As individual projects carried out under the same authorizing statutory or reguIatory
authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in
similar ways.
Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in light of the Program EIR to
determine whether additional environmental documents must be prepared. Additional
environmental review documents must be prepared if the proposed later project may arguably
cause significant adverse effects on the environment.
8.08 USE OF A PROGRAM EIR WITH SUBSEQUENT EIRS AND NEGATNE DECLARATIONS.
A Program EIR can be used to simplify the task of preparing environmental documents in
later parts of the program. The Program ELR can:
(a) Provide the basis for an Initial Study to determine whether the later activity may have any
signifcant effects.
(b) Be incorporated by reference to deal with regional influences, secondary effects,
cumulative impacts, broad alternatives and ather factors that apply to the program as a
whole.
(c} Focus an EIR on a subsequent project to permit discussion solely of new effects which
had not been considered before.
SACUTB\2006\CITY�22869.3 g-4 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for�lmplementing the
California Environmental Oua]itv Act (2006)
8.09 USE OF AN EIR FROM AN EARLIER PROJECT.
Tvoes of EIR's
A single EIIZ may be used to describe more than one project when the projects involve
substantially identical environmental impacts. Any environmental impacts peculiar to one of the
projects must be separately set forth and explained.
8.10 NIASTE[t EIR.
A Master EIIt is an EIIZ which may be prepared for:
(a} A general plan (including elements and amendments);
(b) A specific plan;
(c) A project consisting of smaller individual projects to be phased;
(d) A regulation to be implemented by subsequent projects;
(e) A project to be carried out pursuant to a development agreement;
(� A project pursuant to or furthering a redevelopment plan;
(g) A state hig�iway or mass transit project subject to multiple reviews or approvals; or
(h) A regional transportation plan or congestion management plan. �
A Master EIR must do both of the following:
(a) Describe and present sufficient information about anticipated subsequent projects within
its scope, including their size, location, intensity, and scheduling; and
(b) Preliminarily describe potential impacts of anticipated subsequent projects for which
insufficient information is available to support a full impact assessment.
The City and Responsible Agencies identified in the Master EIR may use the Master EIR
to limit environmental review of subsequent projects. However, the Lead Agency for the
subsequent project must prepare an Initial Study to determine whether the subsequent project and
its significant environmental effects were included in the Master E]R. If the Lead Agency for
the subsequent project finds that the subsequent project will have no additional significant
environmental effect and that no new mitigation measures or alternatives may be required, it may
prepare written findings to that effect without preparing a new environmental document. When
the Lead Agency makes this finding, it must provide public notice of the availability of its
proposed finding for public review and comment in the same manner as if it were providing
public notice of the availability of a draft EIR. (See Sections 15177(d) and 15087 of the State
Guidelines and Section 7.18 of these Guidelines.)
The City as Lead Agency must provide Notice of Completion and Notice of Availability
of a Master EIR within a period of time prior to final adoption by the public agency, as described
in Guidelines Section 7.18.
The Master EIR cannot be used to limit review of a subsequent project if it was certified
more than five (5) years before the filing of an application for the subsequent project or if the
approval of a project that was not described in the Master EIR may affect the adequacy of the
environmental review in the Master EIR for any subsequent project. However, the five (5) year
limitation does not apply if the City finds that no substantial changes or information related to
the Master EIR exist and recerti�es the Master EIR, or if it adopts a Negative Declaration or
SACUTB�0061CITY�22869.3 g-S CBest Best & Krieger LLP ,
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia 6nvironmental Qualitv Act (2006) Tvnes of EIR's
Mitigated Negative� Declaration or certifies a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR that makes
appropriate modification to the Master EIR.
When the Lead Agency cannot find that the subsequent project will have no additional
signiiicant environmental effect and no new mitigation measures or alternatives will be required,
it must prepare either a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an EIR for the subsequent project.
The City may develop a fee program to fund the costs of a Master EIR.
8.11 FocusEn EIR. -
A Focused EIR is an EIR for a subsequent project identified in a Master EIlZ. It may be
used only if the City finds that the Master EIR's analysis of cumulative, growth-inducing, and
irreversible significant environmental effects is adequate for the subsequent project. The
Focused EIR must incorporate by reference the Master EIR.
The Focused��IR must analyze additional significant environmental effects not addressed
in the Master EIR and any new mitigation measures or alternatives not included in the Master
EIR. "Additional significant effects on the environment" means those project-speciiic effects on
the environment which were not addressed as significant effects on the environment in the
Master EIR.
The Focused EIR must also examine the following:
(a} Significant effects discussed in the Master EIR for which substantial new information
exists that shows those effects may be more significant than described in the Master EIR;
(b) Those mitigation measures found to be infeasible in the Master EIR for which substantial
new information exists that shows those effects may be more significant than described in
the Master EIR; and
(c) Those mitigation measures found to be infeasible in the Master EIR for which svbstantial
new information exists that shows those measures may now be feasible.
The Focused EIR need not examine the following effects:
(a) Those that were mitigated through Master EIR mitigation measures; and
(b) Those that were examined in the Master EIR in sufficient detail to allow project-specific
mitigation or for which mitigation was found to be the responsibility of another agency.
A Focused EIR may be prepared for a multifamily residential project not exceeding 100
units or a mixed use residential project not exceeding 100,000 square feet even though the
project was not identifed in a Master EIR, if the following conditions are met:
(a) The project is consistent with a general plan, specifc plan, community plan, or zoning
ordinance for which an EIR was prepared within fve (5) years of the Focused EIR's
certification;
(b) The project does not require the preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR
pursuant to Guidelines Sections 8.02 or 8.03; and
SACVTB12006\CITY�2869.3 g-6 �Best Best & Krieger L.L.P
Local Guidelines for hnplementing the ,
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (2006) Tvces of EIR's
(c) The parcel is surrounded by immediately contiguous urban development, was previously
developed with urban uses, or is within one-half mile of a rail transit station.
A Focused EIR for these projects should be limited to potentially significant effects that
are project-specific and/or which substantial new information shows will be more significant
than described in the Master EIR. No discussion shall be required of alternatives to the project,
cumulative impacts of the project, or the growth-inducing impacts of the -project. (See State
Guidelines Section 15179.5.)
SACUTB12006\CIT`Y�2869.3 g-i OBest Best & Kri�ger LLP
I.ocal Guidelines for Unplementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (2006)
% � 9. CEOA LITIGATION
9.01 1'II�IELINES.
CEOA Litieation
When a CEQA lawsuit is filed, there are numerous and complex time requirements that
must be met. Pressing deadlines begin to run in the days immediately after a CEQA lawsuit has
been filed. For example, within ten (10) business days of the public agency- being served with a
petition or complaint alleging a violation of CEQA, the Lead Agency must provide the petitioner
with a list of Responsible Agencies and public agencies with jurisdiction by law over any natural
resource affected by the project at issue. -
There are a variety of other deadlines that apply in CEQA litigation. If a CEQA lawsuit
is iiled, CEQA counsel should be contacted immediately in order to ensure that all the applicable
deadlines are met.
9.02 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD.
When the Lead Agency's CEQA fnding(s) and/or action is challenged in a lawsuit, the
Lead Agency must certify the administrative record that formed the basis of the Lead Agency's
decision. To the extent the documents listed below exist and are not subject to a privilege that
exempts them from disclosure, the following items should be included in the administrative
record:
�� (1) All project application materials;
(2) All staff reports and related documents prepared by the public agency with
respect to its compliance with the substantive and procedural requirements
of CEQA and with respect to the action on the project;
(3) All staff reports and related documents prepared by the public agency and
written testimony or documents submitted by any person relevant to any
findings or statement of overriding considerations adopted by the public
agency pursuant to this division; any transcript or minutes of the
proceedings at which the decision-making body of the public agency heard
testimony on or considered any environmental aocument on the project,
and any transcript or minutes of proceedings before any advisory body to
the respondent public agency that were presented to the decision-making
body prior to action on the environmental documents or on the project;
(4) All notices issued by the public agency to comply with CEQA or with any
other law governing the processing and approval of the project;
(5) All written comments received in response to, or in connection with,
environmental documents prepared for the project, including responses to
the notice of preparation;
SACIITB�0061CITY\22869.3 9-1 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Unplementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (2006)
CEQA'Li6ga6pn
(6) All written evidence or correspondence submitted to, or transferred from,
the public agency with respect to compliance with CEQA or with respect
to the project;
(7) Any proposed decisions or fndings submitted to the decisionmaking body
of the public agency by its staff or the project proponent, project
opponents, or other persons, to the extent such docur�ents are subject to
public disclosure;
(8) The documentation of the final public agency decision, i�cluding the �nal
environmental impact report, mitigated negative declaration, or negative
declaration, and all documents, in addition to those referenced in
paragraph (3) above, cited or relied on in the findings or in a statement of
overriding considerations adopted pursuant to CEQA;
(9) Any other written materials relevant to the respondent public agency's
�--�- compliance with CEQA or to its decision on the merits of the project,
including the initial study; any drafts of any environmental docuinent, or
portions thereof, that were released for public review; copies of studies or
other documents relied upon in any environmental document prepared for
the project and either made available to the public during the public
review period or included in the public agency's files on the project; and
internal agency communications related to the project or to compliance
with CEQA, to the extent such documents are subject to public disclosure;
and
(10) The full written record before any inferior administrative decisionmaking
body whose decision was appealed prior to the filing of the lawsuit
The administrative record can be prepared: (1) by the petitioner, if the petitioner elects to
do so, or (2) by the Lead Agency. T'he petitioner and the Lead Agency can also agree on any
alternative method of preparing the record. However, when a third party such as the project
applicant prepares or assists with the preparation of the administrative record, the Lead Agency
may not be able to recover fees incurred by the third party unless petitioner has agreed to this
method of preparation.
The administrative record should be arganized either chronologically or by topic area.
The administrative record should include a master index of documents. The documents
generated by the Lead Agency during the CEQA process should be properly labeled for ease of
identification.
SACUTB�2006\CITY122869.3 9-2 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental OualiN Act (20061 Definitions
' 10. DEFINITIONS
Whenever the following terms are used in these Guidelines, they shall have the following
meaning unless otherwise expressly defined:
10.01 "Annlicant" means a person who proposes to carry out a project which requires a
lease, pernut, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use, or requires financial aid
from one or more public agencies when applying for governmental approval or
assistance.
10.02 "Annroval" means a decision by the decision-making body or other authorized body
or officer of the City which commits the City to a definite course of action with
regard to a particular project. With regard to any project to be undertaken directly by
the City, approval shall be deemed to occur on the date when the decision-making
body adopts a motion or resolution determining to proceed with ihe project, which in
no event shall be ]ater than the date of adoption of plans and specifications. As to
private projects, approval shall be deemed to have occurred upon the earliest
commitment to provide service or the issuance by the City of a discretionary contract,
subsidy, or other form of financial assistance, lease, permit, license, certificate, or
other entitlement for use of the project. The mere acquisition of land by the City shall
not, in and of itself, be deemed to constitute approval of a project.
For purposes of these Guidelines, all environmental documents must be completed as
of the time of project approval.
10.03 "Baseline" refers to the pre-project environmental conditions. By comparing the
project's potential impacts to the baseline, the Lead Agency determines whether the
project's impacts are substantial enough to be significant under the relevant
thresholds of significance. Generally, the baseline is the environmental conditions
existing on the date the environmental analysis begins, such as the date of the Notice
of Preparation is published for an EIR or the date of the Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Negative Declaration. However, in certain circumstances, an earlier or later date may
provide a more accurate environmental analysis. The City may establish any baseline
that is appropriate, including an earlier or later date, as long as the choice of baseline
can be supported by substantial evidence.
10.04 "CEOA" (the California Environmental Quality Act) means California Public
Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.
10.05 "Cate�orical Exemption" means an exception from the requirement of preparing a
Negative Declaration or an EIR, based on a finding by the Secretary of the Resources
Agency that the class of projects does not have a significant effect on the
environment.
10.06 "C;tv" means the City of Client, California.
SACUTB�006\C17'Y\22869.3 1 �-1 OBest Best & Kriegcr LLP
L.ocal Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (2006) Definippns
10.07 "Clerk"� means either the "Clerk of the Board" or the "County Clerk" depending
upon the county. Please refer to the "Index to Environmental Filing by County" in
the Staff Summary to determine which applies.
10.08 "Communitv-Level Environmental Review" means either (1) or (2) below:
(1) A certified Environmental Impact Report for any of th� following actions:
(a) A general plan,
(b) A revision or update to the general plan that inc.ludes at least the
land use and circulation elements,
(c) An applicable community plan,
(d) An applicable specific plan, or
(e) A housing element of the general plan, if the Environmental
Impact Report analyzed the environmental effects of the density of
the proposed project; or
(2) A Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted as a
subsequent environmental review document, following and based upon an
Environmental Impact Report on a general plan, community plan or
specific plan.
10.09 "Cumulative Imuacts" means two or more individual effects which, when
considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other
environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a
single project or a number of separate projects, whether past, present or future.
The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which
results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related
past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts can
result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a
period of time.
10.10 "Cumulativelv Considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual
project are signiiicant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.
10.11 "Decision-makin� Body" means the body within the City, i.e., City Council or
Planning Commission, with �nal approval authority over the particular project. (See
Guidelines Section 10.02.)
10.12 "Developed Onen Space" means land that meets each of the following three criteria:
(a) Is publicly owned, or financed in whole or in part by public funds,
(b) Is generally open to, and available for use by, the public,
(c) Is predominantly lacking in structural development other than
structures associated with open spaces, including, but not limited
SANTB\2006\CITY�2869.3 1�-2 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for lmplementing the
California Environmental Oualitv Act (2006)
Definitions
to, playgrounds, swimming pools, ball fields, enclosed child play
areas, and picnic facilities.
Developed Open Space includes land that has been designated for acquisition by a
public agency for open space purposes, but does not incIude lands acquired by public
funds dedicated to the acquisition of land for housing purposes.
10.13 "Development Proiect" means any project undertaken for the purpose of
development, including any project involving the issuance of a pernut for
construction or reconstruction but not a permit to operate. It do�s not include any
ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies.
(Government Code Section 65928.)
10.14 "Discretionary Proiect" means a project for which approval reyuires the exercise of
independent judgment, deliberation, or decision-making on the part of the City.
10.15 "Draft �EIR" means an EIR containing the information summarized in Guidelines
Section 7.13. �
10.16 "Emer�encv" means a sudden, unexpected occurrence, involving a clear and
imminent danger, demanding immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss of, or
damage to, life, health, property, or essential public services. Emergency includes
such occurrences as fire, flood, eaRhquake, landslide or other natural disaster, as well
as such occurrences as riot, war, terrorist incident, accident or sabotage.
10.17 "Endangered. Rare or Threatened Saecies"
(a) "Species" as used in this section means a species or
subspecies of animal or plant or a variety of plant.
(b) A species of animal or plant is:
(1) "Endangered" when its survival and reproduction in the wild are in
immediate jeopardy from one or more cause, including loss of habitat,
change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or
other factors; or
(2) "Rare" when either:
(A) Although not presently threatened with extinction, the species is
existing in such small numbers throughout all or a significant portion of its
range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens; or
(B) The species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and many be
considered "threatened" as that term is used in the Federal Endangered
species Act.
SACUTB\2006\ClTY122869.3 � �-3 �OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Ouality Act (ZOQ41
nefinitiqns
(c) A species of animal or plant shall be presumed to be
endangered, rare or threatened, as it is listed in:
(3) Sections 670.2 or 670.5, Title 14, California Code of Regulations; or
(4) Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations Section 17.11 or 17.12 pursuant to
the Federal Endangered Species Act as rare, threatened, or endangered.
(d) A species not included in any listing identified in
subdivision (c) shall nevertheless be considered to be
endangered, rare or threatened, if the species can be shown
to meet the criteria in subdivision (b).
(e) This definition shall not include any species of the Class
Insecta which is a pest whose protection under the
provisions of CEQA would present an overwhelming and
�- overriding risk to man as deternuned by:
(5) The Director of Food and Agriculture with regard to economic pests; or
(6) The Director of Health Services with regard to health risks.
(Public Resources Code Section 212001(c).)
10.18 "Environment" means the physical conditions which exist in the area which will be
affected by a proposed project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna,
ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. The area involved
shall be the area in which significant effects would occur either directly or indirectly
as a result of the project. The "environment" includes both natural and man-made
conditions.
10.19 "EIR" (Environmental Impact Report) means a detailed written statement setting
forth the environmental effects and considerations pertaining to a project. EIR may
mean a Draft or a Final version of an EIR, a Project EIR, a Subsequent EIR, a
Supglemental EIR, a Tiered EIR, a Staged EIR, a Program EIR, a Master EIR, ar a
Focused EIR.
10.20 "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and
technological factors.
10.21 "Final EIR" means an EIR containing the information contained in the Draft EIR,
comments either verbatim or in summary received in the review process, a list of
persons commenting, and the response of the City to the comments received.
10.22 "Historical Resources" shall be determined accordina to the following:
SAC1lTB12006\CITY�2869.3 � �-4 OBe,t Best & Krieger LLP
,
Local Guidelines forlmplerr►enting the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (20061
Definitions
(a) Resources listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register
of Historical Resources shall be cansidered historical resources.
(b} Resources included in a local register of historical resources, as
defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or identified
as significant in a historical resource survey, as specified in Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1(g), are presumed to be historically
or culturally significant, unless a preponderance of evidence
demonstrates that they are not historically or culturally significant.
Any of the following may be considered historically significant: any object, building,
structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript which a Lead Agency determines,
based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record, to be historically
significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic,
agricultural, educational, social, political, military or cultural annals of California.
The L.ead Agency is not precluded from determining that a resource is a historical
resource, as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1, even if it
is: (a) not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register
of Historical Resources; (b) not included in a local register of historical resources; or
(c) not identified in a historical resources survey.
10.23 "Infill Site" means a site in an urbanized area that meets either of the following
criteria:
(1) The immediately adjacent parcels are:
(a) (i) developed with qualified urban uses, or (ii) at least 75°Io of the
perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with
qualified urban uses and the rernaining 25% of the site adjoins
parcels that have previously been developed for qualified urban
uses,
(b) the site has not been developed for urban uses, and
(c) no parcel within the site has been created within the past ten (10)
years; or
(2) The site has been previously developed for qualified urban uses. (Public
Resources Code Section 21061.0.5.)
10.24 "Initial Studv" means a preliminary analysis conducted by the City to determine
whether an EIR or a Negative Declaration must be prepared or to identify the
significant environmental effects to be analyzed in an EIR.
10.25 "tTurisdiction bv Law" means the authority of any public agency to grant a permit or
other entitlement for use, to provide funding for the project in question or to exercise
authority over resources which may be affected by the project.
The City will have jurisdiction by law over a project when the City, having primary
and exclusive jurisdiction over the area involved, is the site of the project, the area in
SACU7'B�OOfi\CITY�22869.3 � �-5 C�Best Bcst & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Qualitv Act (2006)
Definitions
which the major environmental effects will occur, or the area in which reside those
citizens most directly concerned by any such environmental effects.
10.26 "Land Disnosal Facilitv" means a hazazdous waste facility where hazardous waste is
disposed in, on, or under land. (Health and Safety Code Section 25199.1(d).)
10.27 "Lar�e Treatment Facilitv" means a treatment facility which tr€ats or recycles one
thousand (1,000) or more tons of hazardous waste during any one month of the
cunent reporting period commencing on or after July 1, 1991. (Health and Safety
Code Section 25205.1(d).) -
10.28 "Lead Aeencv" means the public agency which has the principal responsibility for
preparing environmental documents and for canying out or approving a project when
more than one public agency is involved with the same underlying activity.
10.29 "Low-Income Households" means households of persons and families of very low
and low-income. Low-income persons or families aze those eligible for f nancial
assistance from governmental agencies for occupants of state-funded housing. Very
low income persons are those whose incomes do not exceed the qualifying limits for
very low income families as established and amended pursuant to Section 8 of the
United States Housing Act of 1937. Such limits are published and updated in the
California Code of Regulations. (Public Resources Code Section 21159.20(c).)
10.30 "Low- and Moderate-Income Households" means persons or families whose
income dces not exceed 120°10 of area median income, adjusted for family size in
accordance with adjustment factors adopted and amended by the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development pursuant to Section 8 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937. (Public Resources Code Section 21159.20(d).)
10.31 "Maior Transit Stop" means a site containing an existing rail station, a ferry
terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or
more major bus routes that operate at least every fifteen (15) minutes during the
morning and afternoon peak commute periods. (Public Resources Code Section
21064.3.)
10.32 "Ministerial" describes a governmental decision involving little or no personal
judgment by the public official as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the
project. 'The public official merely applies the law to the facts as presented but uses
no special discretion or standards or objective measurements, and the public official
cannot use personal, subjective judgment in deciding whether or how the project
should be carried out. Common examples of ministerial permits include automobile
registrations, dog licenses, and marriage licenses. A building permit is ministerial if
the ordinance requiring the permit limits the public official to determining whether
the zoning allows the structure to be built in the requested tocations, the structure
would meet the strength requirement sin the Uniform Building Code, and the
applicant has paid his fee. (Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(1).)
SACUTB�2006\CI7'Y�2869.3 1 �-6 OBes1 Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (20061
pefinitions
10.33 "Mitieated Negative Declaration" means a Negative Declaration prepared for a
Project when the Initial Study has identified potentially significant effects on the
environment, but: (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed
to by, the applicant before the proposed Negative Declaration and Initial Study are
released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point
where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is
no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the
project, as revised, may have a signiiicant effect on ihe environment.
10.34 "Miti�ation" means avoiding the environmental impact altogether by not taking a
certain action or parts of an action, minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or
magnitude of the action and its implementation, rectifying the impact by repairing,
rehabilitating or restoring the impacted environment, reducing or eliminating the
impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the
action, or compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources
or enviuronments.
10.35 "Negative Declaration" means a written statement by the City briefly describing the
reasons that a proposed project, not exempt from CEQA, will not have a significant
effect on the environment and, therefore, does not require the preparation of an EIR.
10.36 "Notice of Comnletion" means a brief report filed with the Office of Planning and
Research by the City �hen it is the Lead Agency as soon as it has completed a Draft
EII2 and is prepared to send out copies for zeview.
10.37 "Notice of Determination" means a brief notice to be filed by the City when it
approves or deternunes to carry out a project which is subject to the requirements of
CEQA.
10.38 "Notice of Exemption" means a brief notice which may be filed by the City when it
has approved or determined to carry out a project, and it has determined that the
project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Such a notice may also be filed
by an applicant where such a determination has been made by a public agency which
must approve the project.
10.39 "Notice of Preparation" means a brief notice sent by a Lead Agency to notify the
Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, the Office of Planning and Research, and
involved federal agencies that the Lead Agency plans to prepare an EIR for a project.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit guidance fram those agencies as to the scope
and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR. Public
agencies are free to develop their own formats for this notice.
10.40 "Oak" means a native tree species in the genus Quercus, not designated as Group A
or Group B commercial species pursuant to regulations adopted by the State Board of
Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4526 of the Public Resources Code,
and that is 5 inches or more in diameter at breast height. (Public Resources Code §
21083.4(a).)
SACUTB12006\CITYL28693 1�-% OBcst Best & Krizeer LLP
Local Guidelines for Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Qualitv ACt (2006) Definipons
10.41 "Oak Woodlands" means an oak stand with a greater than 10 percent canopy cover
or that may have historically supported greater than 10 percent canopy cover. (Fish
& Game Code § 1361(h).)
10.42 "Offsite Facilitv" means a facility that serves more than one generator of hazardous
waste. (Public Resources Code Section 21151.1(13)(g).)
10.43 "Person" includes any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business,
trust, corporation, company, city, county, city and county, town, the state, and any of
the agencies which may be political subdivisions of such entities, and, to the extent
permitted by federal law, the United States, or any of its agencies or political
subdivisions.
10.44 "Private Proiect" means a project which will be carried out by a person other than a
governmental agency, but which will need a discretionary approval from the City.
Private projects will normally be those listed in subsections (b) and (c) of Guidelines
Sectiori-1�0.45.
10.45 "Proiect" means the whole of an action or activity which may cause either a direct
physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in
the environment, and is any of the following:
(a} A discretionary activity directly undertatcen by the City including
but not limited to public works construction and related activities,
clearing or grading of land, or improvements to existing public
structures.
(b) A discretionary activity which involves a public agency's issuance
to a person of a lease, pernut, license, certificate, or other
entitlement for use, or which is supported, in whole or in part,
through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans or other forms of
assistance by the City.
(c) A discretionary project proposed to be carried out or approved by
public agencies, including but not limited to the enactment and
amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof, the
enactment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of zoning variances,
the issuance of conditional use permits and the approval of
tentative subdivision maps.
The presence of any real degree of control over the manner in which a project is
completed makes it a discretionary project.
The term project refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be
subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. The term
project does not mean each separate governmental approval.
10.46 "Proiect-Snecific Effects" means all the direct or indirect environmental effects of a
project other than cumulative effects and growth-inducing effects. (Public Resources
Code Section 21065.3.)
SACUTB120061CITYL2869.3 � �-8 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Loca] Guidelines for lmplementing the
Califomia Environmental Qua]ity Act (2006) DefiniUons
10.47 "Oualified Urban Use" means any residential, commercial, public institutional,
transit or transportation passenger facility, or retail use, or any combination of those
uses. (Public Resources Code Section 21072.)
10.48 "Residential" means a use consisting of either residential units only or residential
units and primarily neighborhood-serving goods, services, or retail uses that do not
exceed 15% of the total floor azea of the project. -
10.49 "ResDonsible AQencv" means a public agency which proposes to carry out or
approve a project for which a Lead Agency has prepared the environmental
documents. For the purposes of CEQA, the term "Responsible Agency" includes all
federal, state, regional and local public agencies other than the Lead Agency which
have discretionary approval power over the project.
10.50 "Significant Effect" means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in
any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the activity including land,
air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic
signi�cance. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be
considered in deternuning whether the physical change is significant.
10.51 "Staff" means the City Manager or his or her designee.
10.52 "Standard" means a standard of general application that is all of the following:
(a) A quantitative, qualitative or performance requirement found in a
statute, ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, order, or other
standard of general application;
(b) Adopted for the purpose of environmental protection;
(c) Adopted by a public agency through a public review process;
(d) Governs the same environmental effect which the change in the
environment is impacting; and
(e) Governs the jurisdiction where the project is located.
The deiinition of "standard" includes thresholds of significance adopted by the City
which meet the requirements of this Section.
If there is a conflict between standards, the City shall determine which standard is
appropriate based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
10.53 "State Guidelines" means the Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act as adopted by the Secretary of the California Resources
Agency as they now exist or hereafter may be amended. (California Administrative
Code, Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq.)
10.54 "Substantial Evidence" means reliable information on which a fair argument can be
based to support an inference or conclusion, even though another conclusion could be
drawn from that information. "Substantial evidence" includes facts, reasonable
assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.
SACUTB\2006\CITY12286).3 1 �-9 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local GuiJelines for Implementing the
California Environmenta{ Qualitv Act (2006)
l�efinitions
"Substantial evidence" does not include argument, speculation, unsubstantiated
opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of
social or economic impacts which do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical
impacts on the environment.
10.55 "Tiering" means the coverage of general matters in broader EIRs (such as on general
plans or policy statements) with subsequent narrower EIRs or ulti�nately site-specific
EIRs incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on
the issues specific to the EIlZ subsequently prepared. Tiering is appropriate when the
sequence of EIRs is: -
(a) From a general plan, policy, or program EIR to a program, plan, or policy EIIZ of
lesser scope or to a site-specific EIR;
(b) From an EIR on a specific action at an early stage to a subsequent EIR or a
supplement to an EIR at a later stage. Tiering in such cases is appropriate when it
helps the �,ead Agency to focus on the issues which are ripe for decision and exclude
from consideration issues already decided or not yet ripe. '
(Public Resources Code Sections 21003, 21061 and 21100.)
10.56 "Trans�ortation Facilities" means major local arterials and public transit within fve
(5) miles of the project site, and freeways, highways, and rail transit service within
ten (10) miles of the project site.
10.57 "Trustee A e� ncv" means a State agency having jurisdiction by law over natural
resources affected by a project which aze held in trust for the people of the State of
California. Trustee Agencies may include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
The California Department of Fish and Game ("DFG") with regard
to the fish and wildlife of the state, designated rare or endangered
native plants, and game refuges, ecological reserves, and other
areas administered by DFG.
The State Lands Commission with regard to state owned
"sovereign" lands such as the beds of navigable waters and state
school lands.
The State Department of Parks and Recreation with regard to units
of the State Park System.
The University of California with regard to sites within the Natural
Land and Water Reserve System.
The State Water Resources Convol Board with respect to surface
waters.
10.58 "Urbanized Area" means any one of the following:
(1)
An incorporated city that has a population of at least one hundred
thousand (100,000) persons;
SANTB120061CITY122869.3 1 �-1 � OBest Best & Krieger LLP
L.ocal Guidelines foClmplementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (2006)
Definitions
; (2) � An incorporated city that has a population of less than one hundred
� thonsand (100,000) persons if the population of the city and not more than
two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least one hundred
thousand (100,000) persons; or
(3) An unincorporated azea that meets both of the following requirements:
(a) The unincorporated area is either:
(i) completely surrounded by one or more incorporated cities,
the population of the unincorporated area and the
population of the surrounding incorporated city or cities
equals not less than one hundred thousand (100,000)
persons and the population density of the unincorporated
area at least equals the population density of the
surrounding city or cities; or
(ii) located within an urban growth boundary and has an
existing residential population of at least five thousand
(5,000) persons per square mile.
(b) The board of supervisors with jurisdiction over the unincorporated
=area has previously issued a finding that the general plan, zoning
ordinance, and related policies and programs applicable to the area
are consistent with principles that encourage compact
development, and the board of supervisors previously submitted a
draft of that finding to the Office of Planning and Research for a
thirty (30) day comment period prior to issuing a final finding.
(Public Resources Code Section 21071.)
10.59 "Urban Growth Boundarv" means a provision of a locally adopted general plan that
allows urban uses on one side of the boundary and prohibits urban uses on the other
side of the boundary.
10.60 "Wetlands" has the same meaning as that term is construed in the regulations issued
by the United States Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Clean WaCer Act.
Thus, "wetlands" means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and
similar areas. (Public Resources Code Section 21159.21(d), incorporating Title 33,
Code of Federal Regulations, Section 328.3.)
10.61 "Wildlife Habitat" means the ecological communities upon which wild animals,
birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and invertebrates depend for their conservation and
protection. (Public Resources Code Section 21159.21.)
10.62 "Zoning Approval" means any enactment, amendment, or appeal of a zoning
ordinance; granting of a conditional use permit or variance; or any other form of land
SACV7'B\2006\CITY�28643 ��-� � OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines fw Implementing the
Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act (2004)
Definitions
use, subdivision, tract, or development approval required from the city or county
having jurisdiction to permit the particulaz use of the property.
SACUTB12006\CITY122869.3 � �-12 OBest Best & Krieger LLP
Local Guidelines for hnplementing the
Califomia Environmental Onalitv Act (20061
11. FORMS
�
Forms
5ACUTB\20W\CITY�28693 1 1- j OBest Best & Krieger LLP
�
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSE5SMENT
(Certificate of Determination
When Attached to Notice of Exemption)
` 1. Name or description of project:
2. Project Location — Identify street
address and cross streets or attach a
map showing project site (preferably a
USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical map
identified by quadrangle name):
3. Entity or person undertaking project: A.
B. Other (Private)
(1) Name �
(2) Address �
4. Staff Determination:
The City's Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in accordance with the City's
"Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this
project does not require further environmental assessment because:
Ia. ❑ The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA.
I b. ❑ The project is a Ministerial Project.
i
� c. ❑ The project is an Emergency Project.
d. ❑ The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study.
e. ❑ The project is categorically exempt.
Applicable Exemption Class: �
f. ❑ T'he project is statutorily exempt.
Applicable Exemption: (
� g. ❑ The project is otherwise exempt on �
the following basis:
h. ❑ The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency.
Name of Lead Agency: `
Date:
SACRAMENTOV 7'B\21702. I 1CITY\2 WG
Staff:
FORM "A"
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
TO: ❑ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors FROM:
`. .
. or
❑ County Clerk
1.
2.
3
4.
� S.
I 6.
� 7.
I
8.
` 9.
� 10.
Project Title:
Project Location — Identify street address and
cross streets or attach a map showing project site
(preferably a USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical
map identified by quadrangle name):
(a) Project Location — City:
(b) Project Location — County:
Description of nature, purpose, and beneficiaries �
of Project:
Name of Public Agency approving project: ;
Name of Person or Agency carrying out project: I
t
Exempt status: (check one)
(a) ❑ Ministerial project.
(b) ❑ Not a project.
(c) ❑ Emergency Project.
(d) ❑ Categorical Exemption. (
State type and class number: !
(e) ❑ Declared Emergency.
(fl ❑ Statutory Exemption.
State Code section number:
(g) ❑ Other. Explanation:
Reason why project was exempt:
Contact Person:
Telephone:
Attach Preliminary Exemption Assessment (Form "A") before filing.
Date Received for Filing:
(Clerk Stamp Here)
Signature (Lead Agency Representative)
Title
ITB\21589. 1CITY�2006 FORM "B"
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
(STAFF RECOMMBNDATION FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY)
Name or description of project:
2. Project Location — Identify street
address and cross streeu or attach a
map showing project site (preferably a
USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical map
identified by quadrangle name):
3. Entity or person undertaking project: '
A.
B. Other (Private)
(1) Name:
(2) Address:
4. Staff Determinatiorr.-
The City's staff, having undertaken and completed an Initial Study of this project in accordance with the City's
"Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, has reached the
following conclusion:
a. ❑ The project could noi have a signi�cani effect on the environment; therefore, a Negative
Declaration should be adopted.
b. ❑ The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects on the environment but revisions in the
project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects, or
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore a
Mitigated Negative Declaration should be adopted.
c. ❑ Tf�e project may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, an Environmentai Impact
Report will be required.
Date:
Staff:
SACRAMENTOUTB121S94.1\CITY�2006 FORM "C"
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARA'TION
I Notice is hereby given that�the public agency named below has completed an Initial Study of the following described project at
4 the following location:
IPublic Agency: �
IProject Name: i
Project Location — Identify street address and cross
streets or attach a map showing project site
(preferably a USGS I S' or 7 1/2' topographical map
identified by quadrangle name):
This Initial Study was completed in accordance with the City's Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality
Act. T'his Initial Study was undertaken for the purpose of deciding whether the project may have a significant effect on the
environment. On the basis of such Initial Study> the City's Staff has concluded that the project will not have a significant effect
on the environment, and has therefore prepared a Draft Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Initial Study
reflects the independent judgment of the City.
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑�
�■
The Project site IS on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5.
The Project site IS NOT on a list compiled pursuant to Govemment Code secaon 65962.5.
The proposed prc>ject IS considered a project of statewide, regional or areawide significance.
The proposed project IS NOT considered a project of statewide, regional or areawide significance. �
The proposed project WILL affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State Department of
Transportation.
The proposed project Wll.L NOT affect highways or other facilities vnder the jurisdiction of the State Department of
Transportation.
A scoping meeting WILL be held by the lead agency.
A scoping meeting WILL NOT be held by the lead agency.
If the project meets the criteria requiring the scoping meeting, or if the agency volvntarily elects to hold such a meeting, the
date, time and location of the scoping meeting are as follows:
IDate:
} Time:
Location:
Copies of the Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration are on file and are available for
public review at City Hall, located at:
City Hall address:
Comments will be received until the following date:
Any person wishing to comment on this matter must submit such comments, in wriqng, to the City prior to this date. Comments
of all Responsible Agencies are also requested.
The City Council will consider the project and the Draft NegaGve Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration at its meeting on:
IDate:
Ti me:
If the City Council finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, it may adopt the Negative
DeclarationlMitigated Negative Declaration. This means that the City Council may proceed to consider the project without the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.
Date Received
for Filing:
Staff
(Clerk Stamp Here)
Title
SACRAMENTOUTB\?i593.11C1TY\2�116 FORM "D"
�
� 1. Name or description of project:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
2. Project Location — Identify street
address and cross streets or attach a
map showing project site (preferably
a USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographicaJ
map identified by quadrangle name):
I3. Entity or Person undertaking project:
A.
IB. Other (Private) i
, (1) Name:
� (2) Address:
The City Council, having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project and having reviewed the written comments
received prior to the public meeting of the City Council, including the recommendation of the City's Staff, dces hereby
find and declare that theproposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A brief statement of the
' reasons supporting the City Council's findings are as follows: -
The City Council hereby finds that the Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgment. A copy of the Initial
Study may be obtained at:
(
�
IPhone No.: �
The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the City based its decision to adopt this Negative Declaration are as follows:
Phone No.:
Dace Received
for Filing:
Staff
SACRAMENTOUTB� 1603.1 \CITY\2006
FORM "E"
f
�
�
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
TO: ❑ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors FROM: City of:
or Address:
❑ County Clerk Contact:
County of: Phone:
Address:
TO: ❑ Office of Planning and Research
P.O. Box 3044 (U.S. Mail)
Sacramento, California 95812-3044
1400 Tenth Street, Room 222 (overnight delivery)
Sacramento, California 958t4
SUBJECT:
Project Title:
Fifing of Notice of Determination in Compliance wiih Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources
Code. �
State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person:
(If submitted to SCH):
Telephone Number:
Specific Project Location — Identify street address and cross street or attach a map showing project site (preferably a
USGS 15' or 7 1/z' topographical map identified by quadrangle name):
General Project Location (City and/or County):
` Project Description:
�
This is to advise that the ([] Lead Agency or ❑ Responsible Agency) approved the above described project on:
and made the following determinations:
` 1. ❑ f The project will have a significant effect on the environment. I
� �
i❑ The projeci will NOT have a significant effect on the environment
2. ;
❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified for this project pursuant to the provisions of
� CEQA and reflects the independent judament of the Lead Agency.
❑� A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and reflects the
I independent judbment of the Lead Agency.
�I ❑; A Miti�ated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and reflects
1 i the independent.judgment of the Lead Agency.
` 3. ❑ i Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project. I
i
` ❑' Mitigation measures were NOT made a condition of the approval of the project. I
i
SACRAMENTO/JTB/2160?.I/CITY12006 I FORM "F"
(
I �� �
I �
I 5. �
❑
6. ❑
I �
7• ❑
Date:
A Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Plan was adopted for this project.
A Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Plan was NOT adopted for this project.
A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this project.
A Statement of Overriding Considerations was NOT adopted for this project
Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
Findings were NOT made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
This certifies that the location and custodian of the documents which comprise the record of proceedings for the
Final EIR (with comments and responses) or Negative Declaration are available to the general public at the
following location(s):
Custodian:
Date Received for Filing:
SACRA,M ENTOU7'B�21602.1 \CITY12006
Location:
Signature:
Title:
�
FORM "F"
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
r
TO:
[Insert Responsible Agency or Trustee Agency]
[Insert Addressj
�:�u
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report.
The City of: [INSERT CITY NAME] will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the
project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental
information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your
agency will need to use the EIR preQared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project.
The Project description, location, and the probable environmental effects are contained in the attached materials.
I❑ A copy of the Tnitial Study IS attached.
C'
❑
A copy of the Inrtial Study IS NOT attached.
The proposed project IS considered a project of statewide, regional or areawide significance.
❑ The proposed project IS NOT considered a project of statewide, regional or areawide significance.
I ❑
i ❑
I �
� ❑
The proposed project WILL affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State Department of
Transportation.
The proposed project WILL NOT affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State
Department of Transportation.
A scoping meeting WILL be hetd by the lead agency.
A scoping meeting WILL NOT be held by the lead agency.
SACRAMENTOU7'B\21601.1 \CITY�2006
]
FORM "G"
If the project meets the criteria requiring the scoping meeting, or if the agency voluntarily elects to hold such a meeting,
the date, time and location of the scoping meeting are as follows:
! ' Date: , Time: I Location:
Your response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice.
Please send your response to [INSERT NAME] at the address shown above. We will need the name of a contact person
in your agency. -
Project Title:
Project Location — Specific: Identify street
address and cross street or attach a map
showing project site (preferably a USGS 15' or
7'/z' topographical map identified by
quadrangle name):
Project Description:
Project Applicant (if any):
California Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous Waste List (if applicable):
Date: � Signature:
� I Title:
�
ITelephone:
Consulting firm retained to prepare draft EIR (if applicable):
IName:
IAddress:
� City/State/Zip:
� Contact Person:
SACRAR9ENTOUTB\21601.1\CiTY�2006 2 FORM "G"
NOTICE OF COMPLETION & ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT TRANSMITTAL .
(
CITY/NEAREST COMMUNITY
ZIP CODE
For U.S. Mai1: State Clearinghouse, PO Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
For Hand Delivery and Ovemight Delivery/Sfreet Address 1400 Tenth Street, Room 222, Sacramento, CA 95812
(916) 445-0613
PROJECT TITLE
LEAD AGENCY I CONTACT PERSON _
STREET ADDRESS TELEPHONE
(If no street address is available, attach a map showing project site (preferably a U.S.G.S. 15' or 7 Yi topographical
map identfied by quadrangle name.)
CITY I ZIP CODE I COUNTY
IPROJECT LOCATION
` COUNTY
�
ICROSS STREETS
� ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
WITHIN 2 MILES: STATE HIGHWAY NO.
r
� WITHIN 2 MILES: AIRPORTS
t
DOCUMENT TYPE
I � NOP
( ❑ Early Cons
IO Neg Dec
( ❑ Mit Neg Dec
I O Draft EIR
LOCAL ACTION TYPE
I O General Plan Update
� ❑ General Plan Amendmern
ID General Plan Element
I ❑ Community Plan
DEVELOPMENT TYPE
I ❑ Residential: Units:
I � OHice: Sq. ft.
IO Commercial: Sq. ft.
I ❑ Industrial: Sq. ft.
I❑ Educational:
❑ Recreational:
�
TOTAL ACRES
SEC710N TQWNSHIP RANGE I BASE
WITHIN 2 MILES: WATERWAYS
WITHIN 2 MILES: RAILWAYS � WITHIN 2 MILES: SCHOOLS
SCH No..
CEQA
� Supplement to EIR
� Subseque�t EIR
❑ (Prior SCH No.):
❑ Other.
❑ Specific Plan
O Master Plan
❑ Planned Unit Development
❑ Site Plan
Acres:
Acres:
Acres:
Acres:
, NEPA
❑ NOI
❑ EA
❑ Draft EIS
❑ FONSI
❑ Rezone
❑ Prezone
O Use Permit
❑ Land Division (Subdivision,
etc.)
❑ Water Facilities:
Employees: ❑ Transportation:
Employees: � ❑ Mining:
Employees: ( ❑ Power.
� I Waste Treatment:
� ❑ I Hazardous Waste:
I ❑ I Other:
OTHER
O Jant Document
0 Final Document
O Other.
❑ Anneuation
❑ Redevelopment
❑ Coastal Permit
O Other.
Type:
Type:
Mineral:
Type:
Type:
Type:
MGD:
MW:
SACRAMENTOWT6121600.1\CITY\2006 1 FORM ��H'�
i
� PRpJECT ISSUES THAT MAY HAYE A SIGNIFlCANT OR POTENTIALLY SFGNIFlCANT IMPACT:
I O AestheticNisual ❑ GeologiGSeismic
i �
❑
` D
If �
I �
� ❑
D
�
❑
❑
■
■
■
■
■
■
Minerals
Noise
Population/Housing Balance
Public Services/Facilities
RecreationlParks
SchoolslUniversities
Septic Systems
Sewer Capacity
Soil ErosioNCompactaNGrading
Solid Waste
ToxiclHazardous
TraNicJCirculation
Vegetation
Water �uality
Water Suppiy/Groundwater
WeUand/Riparian
W ildlite
Growth Inducement
Land Use
Cumulative Efiects
Other.
PRESENT LA1dD USE20N{NGlGEMERAL PL.AN USE DESiGTtATiON:
❑
0
❑
0
❑
❑
D
0
D
D
0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (nlease usea-sevarate oaoe if necessarv�
NOTE: Ciearinohouse wiN assion ide int fication numbers tor all rtew araects. If a SCN number afreadv exists foi a nroiect (e.a. Motice oi Pievaration or nrevious drd/(
document) olease lil! in.
Revised 2005
f
� Reviewing Agencies Checklist
KEY: S= Document sent by lead age�cy
I X= Document sent by SCH
T = Suggested distribution
Agncultural Land
Air Quaiity
ArchaeologicaUHistorical
Biological Resources
Coastal Zone
Drainage/Absorption
Economic/Jobs
Fiscal
Flood Plain/Fboding
Forest Land/Fire Hazard
Le oencies mav recommend State Clearinahouse distribuUon mv mark'� aaencies befow.�
Air Resources Board
Boatinq & Waterways, Department of
Calffornia Hiphway Patrol
CaHrans District #
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
Caltrans Planninq
Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy
Coastal Commission
Colorado Rivar Board
Conservation, Department of
Corrections, Department of
Deka Protection Commission
Education, Depanment ot
OHica of Public School Construction
Enerqy Commission
Fish & Game Region ri
Food & Aariculture, Department of
Forestry 8 Fire Protection
General Services, Department of
Healih Services, DepaAment of
Fiousinq & Community Deveiopment
Integrated Waste ManaOement Board
SACRAME NTOV T6121600.1\CITY12006
Appendix C
Native American Heritage Commission
Ofiice oi Emerqency Services
Office of Historic Preservation
Parks & Recreation
Pesticide ReQulation, DepaAment of
Public Utilities Commission
ReclamaGon Board
Reyional Water Quality Board No.: Resources Aqency
S.F. Bay Conservation 8 Development Commission
San Gabriel & Lower Los Anqeles Rivers & Mountains Conservancv
San Joaquin River Conservancy
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancv
State Lands Commission
SWRCB: Clean Water Grants
SWRCB: WaterQuality
SWRCB: Water Riqhts
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
To�uc Substances Control, DepaAment of
Water Resources, Oepartment of
Other:
Other:
�
FORM "H"
Local Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency): '
Starting Date: Ending Date:
9
Lead Agency (Complete rf applicable):
Consutting Firm:
Address:
City/State2ip:
Contact:
Phane:
i
Appficant:
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone:
Signature of Lead Agency
Fepresentative:
Date:
� For SCH Use Only:
I
�
Date Received at SCH
Date Review Starts
: Date to Agencies
Date to SCH
Clearance Date
iNotes:
SACRAMENTOUT6121600.11CITY12006 3
i
FORM "H"
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM �
(To be completed by private project applicant to assist staff in completing Initial Study)
�
Date Filed:
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Developer or project sponsor:
2
3.
4.
Name:
Address:
Project Location — Identify street
address and cross streets or attach
a map showing project site
(preferably a USGS ] 5' or 7]/2'
topographical map identified by
quadrangle name):
Assessor's Block and Lot Number:
Person to be contacted regarding Name:
this project:
Address:
Telephone:
5. Permit Application Number for
project:
6. Existing Zoning Disvict:
7. Proposed use of site (project for
which this form is filed):
List and describe any other related pernnits and other public approvais required for this project, including those required
by city, regional, state and federal agencies:
I 8.
� 9.
I]0
� 11
� 12.
� 13.
( 14.
� I5.
Site size:
Square footage:
Number of floors of construction:
Amount of off-street parking
provided:
Attach plans:
Proposed scheduling:
Associated projects:
Anticipated incremental
development:
SACRAMENTOVTf3121598. 1 CITY12006
Page 1
FORM "I"
N
�
�
17
If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sales prices or rents and type of
household size expected.
If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area
and loading facilities.
18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated empioyment per shift and loading facilities.
19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading
facilities and community benefits to be derived from the project.
20. If the project invoIves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clear3y why the
application is required. '
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects?
Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary).
YES NO
❑ ❑
0
❑
❑
0
❑
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
�
�
■
■
�
■
■
■
��
21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes, hills or substantia) alteration of
ground contours.
22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads.
23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water qualiry or quantity, or alteration of existing
drainage patterns.
27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration ievels in the vicinity.
28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more.
29. Use or disposai of potentially hazardous materiais, such as toxic substances, flammables or
explosives.
30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.).
31. Substantial increase in fossil fue] consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.).
32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
33. Has a prior environmental impact report been prepared for a program, plan, policy or ordinance
consistent with this project?
34. If you answered yes to question 33, may this project causc significant effects on the environment
SACRAMENTOVTB121598. ]CITY12006 Page 2 FORM "I"
YES NO
that were not examined in the prior EIR?
�
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
35. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants
and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the
use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. (Snapshots or instant photos acceptable.)
36. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or
scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family,
apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-back, rear yard,
etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. (Snapshots or instant photos acceptable.)
CERTIFICATION: I he�eby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and
information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information
presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Date:
Signature:
For:
SACRAMENTOUTB�21598. 1 CITY�2006 Page 3
FORM "I"
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLTST FORM
1. Project Title:
� 2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
3. Contact Person and Fhone Number:
4. Project Location:
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
6. General Plan Designation:
7. Zoning:
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action iovolved, including but not limited to later phases of the
project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additionai
sheet(s) if necessary.)
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
ENVIROI�TMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that
is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service Systems
CffY (STANDARD)�,SAC11TB12006122628.1
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
0
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water Quality
Noise
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Signifcance
Page I of 15
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Air Quality
Geology / Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation / Traffic
FORM "J"
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
�� � I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
� I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIYE DECLARATION will be prepared.
� I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
� I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated"
impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
� I find that although the proposed project could have a signiticant effect on the environment, because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to
applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGAT'IVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing
further is required.
Signature
Printed Name
Date
For
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply dces not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project-specific factors as we11 as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,
based on a project-specific screening analysis).
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one
or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a"Less than Significant Impact." The
lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
CITY (STANDARD)1SACUTB�006122628.1 Page 2 of 15 FORM "J"
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declazation. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion
should identify the following:
a)
b)
c)
Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable leaal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts
(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
Supponing Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should
normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format
is selected.
The explanation of each issue should identify:
a)
b)
the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
SAMPLE QUESTION
Issues:
AESTHETICS. Would the projecr.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including> but not limited
to, tress, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation 5ignificant
Impact Incorporated Impact
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
CITY (STANDARD)�SAC�1T6�?006�22628.1 Page 3 of 15
❑
❑
❑
No
Impact
❑
❑
❑
❑
FORM "J"
I
Issues:
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model
to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, vr a Williamson
Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature> could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use?
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the
significance criteria established by the applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Resuit in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is nonattainment
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
CITY (STANDARD)\SACt1TB12006�22628.1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
�❑
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
�❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
Page 4 of 15
Less Than
Significant
Impact
❑�
No
Impact
�
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑�
�
FORM "J"
�"
Issues:
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting
a substantial number of people?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
b)
c)
d)
e)
either direcdy or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wedands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means`?
Interfere subsiantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with estabiished native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
CITY (S7'ANDARD)�.SAClITB12006122628.1
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 ❑ D ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
�
�
0
❑�
�
Page 5 of 15
�'
�
�
❑�
❑�
❑
n
�❑
❑�
❑�
u
.
❑�
❑�
�
FORM "J"
i
�
;
Issues:
f� Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
c} Directiy or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Specia]
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
CITY (STA�IDARD)\SACUT8�2006\22628.1
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
u
❑
❑
❑
❑
Page 6 of ( 5
u
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
u
■
■
■
■
u
�
�
■
�
FORM "J"
1
Issues:
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18 I B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upsetand
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c) Emit hazazdous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
CITY (STANDARD)1SACUTB\2006122628.1
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
U
n
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
Page 7 of 15
❑ a
❑ ❑
FORM "J"
f
�
Issues:
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
� For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
g) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences aze intermixed with
wildlands?
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge reyuirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially aiter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or azea,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
CITY (STANDARD)\SACUTB12006�22628.1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
❑
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
Page 8 of 15
Less Than
Significant
Impact
❑
No
Impact
❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
0
0
FORM "J"
�
r
;
Issues:
d) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
� Otherwise substantially degrade
water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year
flood hazazd area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede
or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam?
j) Expose people or structures to
inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
project:
a) Physica]!y divide an established
community?
CITY (STANDARD)\SAClITB12006122628.]
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
�
■
0
❑�
�❑
■❑
■
■
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ a
Page 9 of 15
■
■
■
■
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
�
n
FORM "J"
Issues:
� b) Conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited
to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
�
n
[
0
❑ o
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
�.
n
�❑
�
❑ ❑
o ❑
�
�I
CiTY (STANDARD)4SACUTB12006�22628.1 Page 10 of 15 FORM "J"
�
�
Issues:
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
fl For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
project:
a) Induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through extension of
road or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
Fire protection?
CITY (STANDARD)\SACUTB12006\22628.1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
❑
❑■
�
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
❑
❑�
�
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
L,ess Than
Significant
Impact
❑
❑�
�
No
Impact
❑
�.
��
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page 11 of 15 FORM "J"
�
Issues:
Police protection?
s�hoo�s�
Parks?
Other public facilities?
RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional pazks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Dces the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational
facilities which have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the
project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due
to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
CITY (STANDARD)1SACVTB�2006122628.t
Less Than
Significant .
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
❑ ❑ a ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
a ❑ a ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page 12 of I S
FORM "J"
\
�
Issues:
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
fl Result in inadequate parking
capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would
the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction
of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction
of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources,
or aze new or expanded entitlements
needed? In making this
determination, the City shall
consider whether the project is
subject to the water supply
assessment requirements of Water
Code Section ]0910, et• sea. (SB
610), and the requirements of
Government Code Section 664737
(SB 221).
CITY (STANDARD)\SACUTB12006122628.1
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ a
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page 13 of 15
FORM "J"
�
Issues:
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's
existing commitments?
� Be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Dces the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantiaily
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species; cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels; threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community; substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of an
endangered, rare or threatened
species; or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the poteniial
to achieve short-term environmental
goals to the disadvantage of long-
term environmental goals?
c) Dces the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
CITY (STA(YDARD)1SACVTB\2(�6�2628.1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
❑
Less Than
Significant
W ith
Mitigation
Incorporated
❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ a
❑ a
Page 14 of I S
Less Than
Significant
Impact
❑
No
Impact
❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
�
n
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
FORM "J"
Issues:
d) Dces the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
❑ ❑ ❑
No
Impact
�
CITY (STANDARD)�SACUTB�2006�22628.1 Page 15 of 15 FORM "J"
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF DRAFT EIR
IProject Title:
Project Location — Specifc; Identify
street address and cross streets or
attach a map showing project site
(preferably a USGS 15' or 7 1/2'
topographical map identified by
quadrangle name):
Project Location — City:
Project Location — County:
Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project:
ILead Agency:
I Division
IDate when project noticed to public:
Address where copy of the EIR is available:
Review Period:
Contact Person:
Contact Person's Telephone (Area
Code/Extension:
SACRA.MF,NTOUTB121596.1\CI"TY\2(�6 FORM "K"
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION
�. .
Project Tide/Location (include county):
Name and Address of Project Applicant:
Project Description:
Findings of Exemption:
De Minimis Impact Finding
1. An Initial Study has been prepared by the Lead Agency to evaluate the project's effects on wildlife
resources, if any. -
2. The Lead Agency hereby finds that there is no evidence before the Agency that the project will have any
potential for adverse effect on the environment.
� 3. (a) The project WILL result in changes � 3. (b} The project WILL NOT result in changes to the
to the following resources: following resources:
(A) Riparian land, rivers, sveams, watercoucses and wetlands;
(B) Native and non-native plant life and the soil required to sustain habitat for fish and wildlife;
(C) -�"Rare and unique plant life and ecological communities dependant on plant life;
(D) Listed threatened and endangered plants and animals and the habitat in which they-are believed
to reside;
(E) Ali species listed as protected or identified for special management in the Fish and Game Code,
the Public Resources Code, the Water Code or regulations adopted thereunder;
(F) All marine and terresvial species subject to the jurisdiction of the Depaztment of Fish and Game
and the ecological communities in which they reside; and
(G) All air and water resources, the degradation of which will individually or cumulatively result in a
loss of biological diversity among the plants and animals residing in that air and water.
If the project will result in changes to any of these resources, the Agency has, on the basis of substantia!
evidence, "rebutted" the presumption of adverse effect to these resources. A statement in support of this
rebutta! is attached.
CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that the Lead Agency has made the above finding(s) of fact and based upon the Initial Study and
the hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as
defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
Signature - Lead Agency Representative
Title:
Lead Agency:
Date:
JTB\21595.�CITY1'_(Hl6 FORM "L"
NOTICE O� RECIRCULATION
r
To whom it roay concern:
CITY OF:
You aze receiving this notice because you commented on the Draft EIR for the following Project:
Project Name:
Project Description:
Project Location — Identify street address and
cross streets or attach a map showing project site
(preferably a USGS ]5' or 7 1/2' topographical
map identified by quadrangle name):
, The Draft ElR prepare7�'or this project has been revised.
�❑ The entire Draft EIR is being recirculated. Your prior comments remain part of the administrative record, but
they are no longer applicable to the Draft EIR that is under consideration. The Final EIR will not provide a
response to your prior comments. Should you wish to comment on the revised Draft EIR, you will need to
� submit new comments.
i❑ Only the following chapters or portions of the
Draft EIR have been revised, and only those parts
of the revised Draft EIR are being recirculated:
�
I❑ Your comments should be limited to those parts of the revised Draft EIR that are being recirculated.
❑ Your comments need not be limited to those parts of the revised Draft EIR that are being recirculated.
I Should you have any questions about this notice, please contact:
IStaff:
� Title:
Telephone Number:
E-Mail:
Date Received
f'or Filing:
Staff
(Clerk Stamp Here)
SACRAIv1ENTOU'T6122617. 1 CITY�2006
Title
• :f�T73�
[Date] �
General Manager
ABC Water District/Agency/Company
123 Main St.
Anytown USA, 9xxxx
Re: Water Supply Verification for Project within the City of .
Dear M(r/s.) , -
[Subdivision proponent] has submitted to the City an application for tentative map (No. ## -##)
for the following subdivision ("Subdivision"):
[insert project description]
[City staff has determined that the application is complete. Pursuant to Government Code
section 66455.3, we are enclosing a copy of the application.] •
[We have consulted with each other and have mutually agreed that your
[District/Agency/Company] is a public water system that may provide water service to the
Subdivision. We have also mutually agre�d that the Subdivision is subject to the water supply
verification requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.] Pursuant to Government Code section
66473.7(b)(1), [City] requests (DistricVAgency/CompanyJ to submit a water supply verification
for the Subdivision on or before , , which is within 90 days of the date of this
request. Please contact me to confirm receipt of this request.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions about this request,
please contact me at your earliest convenience.
[Name]
[Title]
City of [City]
S AC R AM ENTOU T B�2006\C ITY121637. l
[Date]
General Manager
ABC Water DistricdAgency/Company
123 Main St.
Anytown USA, 9xxxx
Re: Water Supply Assessment for Project within the City of
Dear M(r/s.)
We have received an application from [project proponent] for the following project
("Project"):
[list applications and briefly describe project]
[We have consulted with each other and have mutually agreed that your •
[DistrictlAgency/Company] is a public water system that may provide water service to
the Project. We have also mutually agreed that the Project is subject to the water supply
assessment requirements of Water Code sections 10910 - 10912.J Pursuant to Water
Code section 10910, [City] requests [DistrictlAgency/Company] to submit a water supply
assessment for the Project on or before , which is within 90 days of the
date of this request. We concurrently request the [DistrictlAgency/Company] to state
whether the projected water demand associated with the Project was included as part of
the City's most recently adopted Urban Water Management Plan. Please contact me to
confirm receipt of this request.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions about this
request, please contact me at your earliest convenience.
[Name}
[Title]
City of [City]
SACRAMF.NTOUT6�2 W6ICITY�21636.1
m
MEMORANDUM
To: Project 5 Participants CLIENT-MATTER NO.: 93939.Q0005
FROM: Best Best & Krieger LLP
RE: 2005 CEQA Legislation
In 2005, the L,egislature passed and the Governor signed only two bills relating to CEQA;
all of the other CEQA bills failed to pass. The two bills that have been enacted into law are
briefly summarized below.
Assembly Bi111170 (AB 1170)
AB 1170 provides a specific, narrow exemption from CEQA for seismic retrofit work
and joint use agreements undertaken by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. The
impact of this law is limited to certain specified BART facilities, so no revisions to the Local
Guidelines are necessary.
5enate Bi11648 (SB 648)
SB 648 changes the way the public review period is calculated for documents that are
submitted to the State Clearinghouse. SB 648 specifies that the state review period begins when
the State Clearinghouse distributes the document to state agencies, not when the State
Clearinghouse receives the documents. SB 648 further provides that the public review period
can run concurrently with the state agency review period, but the public review period cannot
end before the state agency review period does. Thus, for all practical purposes, the public
review period for documents that are submitted to the State Clearinghouse for state agency
review has been extended for as long as the state review geriod. Because the State
Clearinghouse has three days after receipt to distribute the documents, it would be prudent to
calculate the public review period as beginning three business days after the State Clearinghouse
receives the documents and ending either 30 days (for negative declarations) or 45 days (for
EIRs) later.
In the wake of the Trinity River restoration program debate over which agency should
assume the lead agency role for CEQA review, SB 648 also covers the topic of lead agency
disputes. SB 648 provides that, for purposes of those provisions requiring the designation by the
Office of Planning and Research of a lead agency, a"dispute" means a contested, active
difference of opinion between two or more public agencies as to which of those agencies shall
prepare any necessary environmental document, and that a dispute exists where a public agency
claims that it either has or does not have the obligation to prepare an environmental document.
SB 648 prohibits OPR from designating a lead agency in the absence of such a dispute.
SB 648 has been codified in amendments to Section 21091 and Section 21165 of the
Public Resources Code. Sections 6.06 and 7.02 of your Local Guidelines has been revised to
reflect changes in the calculation of public review periods for documents that are circulated
SAC RAM ENTOU B UCKMAIV129312. I
through the State Clearinghouse. Section 2.02 of your Local Guidelines has been revised to
reflect the new statutory language relating to lead agency disputes.
SACRAMENT'OVBUCKMAN129312.1
-2-
(
MEMORANDUM
To: Project 5 Participants CLIENT-MATTER NO.: 93939.00005
FROM: Best Best & Krieger LLP
RE: 2005-06 CEQA Cases
In the past year, the courts published more than 20 new CEQA cases. Because trial
courts are expected to follow the rules announced in each of these published decisions, the cases
are briefly summarized below.
WATER SUPPLY
Again in 2005, water supply was one of the most frequently litigated aspects of
environmental documents, and again the decisions resulted in a mixed bag for lead agencies. On
the one hand, Sierra Club v. the West Side Irrigation District upheld the lead agency's
determination that a water transfer to supply the level of growth approved in a city's general plan
was not growth-inducing. On the other hand, in the case challenging the EIR for a statewide
water project, the same Court of Appeal found an EIR defective for failing to analyze an
alternative that reduced anticipated population growth in Southern California below the levels in
the approved regional growth forecasts. This latter case has been taken up by the California
( Supreme Court.
The two cases concerning water supplies for development projects also yielded split
results. In California Oak Foundation v. City of Santa Clarita, the court overturned the EIR
because the water supply analysis was based on a prospective water source, and the court felt the
EIR needed to include additional analysis of the likelihood of water deficit and alternative
sources of supply. In contrast, Vineyard Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho
Cordova upheld an EIR in which the water supply for a proposed development project was
prospective. Relying on the agency's specific, identifed plans for obtaining additional water,
Vineyard explicitly approved the lead agency's combination of conditions restricting future
development to the then-available water supplies. Unfortunately, the California Supreme Court
has also decided to hear the Vineyard case, so lead agencies cannot rely on it at this time. We
hope that we will have better guidance from the California Supreme Court on these complex
water supply issues in the next few months.
Sierra Club v. the West Side Irrigation District 128 Cal. App. 4th 690 (2005)
The Third District Court of Appeal recently upheld a negative declaration adopted by
West Side Irrigation District and the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District to analyze the
environmental impacts of transfers of portions of the district's Central Valley Project water
entitlement to the City of Tracy. The negative declaration was deemed adequate because the
City's prior EIR for its General Plan provided adequate analysis for any potential environmental
impacts associated with the City's growth and increased water demand. No new EIR was
required.
SACRAMENTOV BUCK.MAN128590.1
� The Central Valley Project is a network of federally owned and operated canals,
channels, and reservoirs which delivers water throughout California for agricultural, municipal
and industrial users. The City has an annual right to 10,000 acre-feet of Central Valley Project
water and can safely pump b,000 acre-feet of groundwater.
The City's General Plan proposed policies and goals for the expansion of the City.
Although the City's current water supplies were adequate, the planned growth would require the
acquisition of additional water. The General Plan included a policy requiring the City to reduce
reliance on groundwater and instead find surface water sources to meet future needs. The City
certified an EIR which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the General Plan,
including impacts associated with the City's growth and increased reliance on surface water
sources.
In 2001, the City negotiated agreements with two water districts providing for the
districts to transfer some of their Central Valley Project water to the City. The districts adopted
negative declarations for these proposed transfers.
Sierra Club challenged the transfers, claiming that the districts should have prepared a
joint EIR. Among other things, Sierra Club argued that the approval of the transfer violated
CEQA by: (1) impermissibly "segmenting" a single transfer project into two parts, (2) failing to
address the cumulative impacts of the transfers, and (3) failing to consider the environmental
impacts that would result from water cutbacks during drought years.
First, the court rejected Sierra Club's argument that both transfers should have been
analyzed in one environmental document. When two activities are parts of one larger
undertaking or when a second activity is a reasonably foreseeable result of an earlier activity,
CEQA requires that both activities be analyzed as a single project. Although similar, the
transfers were separate projects which could proceed independently. Therefore, it was proper for
the lead agency to conduct separate environmental reviews.
The court next considered Sierra Club's argument that the districts failed to consider the
cumulative and growth-inducing impacts of the water transfers on the region's hydrology and
growth. The districts analyzed cumulative impacts and identified nearby foreseeable projects but
ultimately concluded that the cumulative impacts did not exceed those already analyzed in the
City's General Plan EIR. The court agreed, �nding that the districts' cumulative impacts
analyses were sufficient.
With regard to growth-inducing impacts, Sierra Club argued that the water transfers
would cause growth that was not accounted for in the City's General Plan EIR and that the use of
transferred water was not restricted to areas covered by the EIR. The court rejected these
arguments again, finding that the growth-inducing impacts did not exceed those analyzed in the
General Plan EIR and that the "initial study clearly state[d] [that] the water was to be assigned
only to those areas already subject to the City's general plan."
Finally, the court rejected Sierra Club's argument that the districts did not adequately
consider the impacts of water cutbacks during drought years. The court found that the districts'
initial studies directly addressed this issue by analyzing the potential environmental impacts that
2
SACRA,vIENTOV BUCKM AN128590.1
would occur from a 40% cut in water deliveries during drought yeazs. The court found that the
districts were not required to analyze a greater reduction because it was speculative to assume
that future droughts would result in water supply reductions greater than 40%.
Sierra Club is notable because it is the first case explicitly holding that, to the extent a
water transfer is intended to serve a level of growth in an approved and adopted General Plan,
the water transfer is not itself growth-inducing. In contrast, a water transfer effected to supply
growth projections that have not been approved in an adopted General Plan may be growth-
inducing, and the growth-inducing impacts of that increase in water supply should be analyzed in
the environmental document. See County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency, 76
Cal. App. 4th 93 l, 949 (1999); City of Antioch v. City Council, 187 Cal. App. 3d 1325, 1337
(1986) ("making ... additional water available for consumptive purposes removes a major
barrier to growth and can virtually ensure development.").
In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental lmpact Report Coordinated
Proceedings, 133 Cal. App. 4th 154 (2005), review granted
The California 5upreme Court has granted review of two combined cases that considered
the EIR prepared for the Bay-Delta/CALFED water program. While the appellate court decision
has no binding effect on trial courts at this time, it is noteworthy to identify the issues that may
be considered in the Supreme Court's forthcoming decision.
CALFED is a combined effort by multiple state and federal agencies to provide a long-
(, term, comprehensive program for water management in California. The program seeks to
improve water quality, provide more reliable supplies for water users, and provide additional
flows for fish and wildlife purposes. The biggest challenge the CALFED program has faced is a
conflict between its various goals: the vast majority of California's reliable water rights are
already being put to beneficial use, and, generally speaking, it is not possible to increase
streamflows for water quality or fish and wildlife purposes without taking water away from
existing uses.
Opponents of CALFED raised numerous CEQA and non-CEQA arguments in their
attempt to invalidate the project, and the Court of Appeals' decision was extremely lengthy.
Essentially, though, the court rejected all of the non-CEQA arguments and most of the CEQA
claims but found three faults that rendered the programmatic EIS/EIR fatally deficient. First, the
court found that the EIS/EIR should have included and analyzed an alternative calling for
reduced water exports from the Bay-Delta region. The court speculated that restricting water
availability as in this alternative might discourage growth in Southern California and thus reduce
the need for development of additional water supplies. Second, the court found that the EIS/EIR
did not adequately analyze the potential sources of water that would be reallocated to provide the
program's fish and wildlife and water quality flows. Third, because the EI5/EIR failed to
disclose the potential water sources, the court found that the EIS/EIR did not adequately disclose
or analyze the terms of the Environmental Water Account or the potential environmental impacts
that its implementation may cause.
It is difficult to predict which of the many issues covered in the CALFED opinion will be
taken up by the California Supreme Court. However, the court's finding that the agencies were
3
S AC RAM ENTOU B U C KM AN128590. l
�� required to consider a reduced Delta exports alternative seems highly questionable because that
' alternative would be legally, economically, and socially infeasible. Water is appropriated from
the Delta pursuant to permits issued by the State Water Rights Board (now known as the State
Water Resources Control Board). CALFED cannot curtail those diversions without "taking"
these existing, beneficially used water rights, and the federal and state Constitutions would
require compensation for such a taking of property. Condemning these rights would probably be
prohibitively expensive. It would also be politically infeasible, as these rights provide the
municipal supplies for about 2/3 of California's population. Therefore, the court's holding that
the CALFED agencies were required to consider and analyze such an alternative is dubious.
Regarding the potential sources of water to be reallocated to supply the CALFED
program, it is not clear how the Supreme Court will view this issue. Before the Court of
Appeals, the State argued that a detailed analysis of CALFED's potential water sources was
premature because the purpose of a programmatic EIS/EIR is to provide an environmental
overview of subsequent projects, with project-specific environmental review occurring at a later
date. The State also argued that CALFED was intended to cover a thirty year period, such that it
would be speculative to include detailed information about the potential water sources that could
be obtained to fulfill the project's purposes. The court, however, found that the central purpose
of CALFED is to manage a large portion of the State's water supply and to meet anticipated
future demands. The court held that failing to consider the potential sources of those water
supplies was a failure to analyze the central purpose behind the EIS/EIR and a violation of
CEQA's public disclosure and environmental analysis requirements.
The petitioners in the CALFED CEQA litigation raised numerous other issues, any one of
which the Supreme Court may take up in its review. Hopefully, though, the Supreme Court
decision will also resolve these important questions concerning the extent to which a water
supply agency must second-guess other agencies' approved growth estimates and the depth and
breadth of the analysis of the water transfers needed to accomplish the program's aims.
California Oak Fvundation v. Ciry of Santa Clarita,133 Cal. App. 4th 1219(2005)
California Oak Fourcdation is the most recent CEQA appellate decision in the string of
cases that have considered the development approvals associated with Newhall Ranch in Santa
Clarita Valley. Like its predecessors, this case also found the environmental analysis for the
proposed development to be fatally flawed. Specifically, the court held that when an EIR relies
upon a prospective water source to support long-term development, the EIR must contain a
detailed analysis regarding both the likelihood of water deficit for the project and alternative
sources of supply. In addition, the court strongly indicated that the EIR must include its
discussion of water supply availability in the main text of the document, as opposed to the
appendices.
The project at issue in this case was the proposed Gate-King Industrial Park. To supply
the project's hotel needs, the project intended to rely on the Castaic Lake Water Agency's
(Castaic) entitlement to 41,000 acre-feet per year of State Water Project water. Castaic had
purchased this entitlement from Kern County Water Agency but subsequent court decisions
struck down the EIRs that analyzed the proposed transfer. The court did not enjoin Castaic's use
4
SACRAMENTOV BUCKMAN128590.1
of the water source, but the litigation is still pending, and the availability of the 41,000 AFY is
uncertain.
The Gate-King EIlZ acknowledged that "ongoing legal challenges" could limit the source
of supply. Further, Appendix K of the EIR stated that if the 41,000 AFY continued to be
available, water supplies "appear to be sufficient," but if it were not available, water supplies
could be insufficient. To address that contingency, the City identified several additional sources
of water supplies which could be developed over time, including water recycling, other water
purchases, and desalination.
The court found the EIR did not contain substantial evidence to support a conclusion that
sufficient water sources existed for the project. In doing so, the court indicated that only water
that is "actually deliverable" should be relied upon for purposes of analyzing environmental
impacts. The court also noted that issues as important as water supply availability should be
discussed in the body of the environmental document itself, as opposed to the appendix. Finally,
the court found that, when the sufiiciency of water resources available to serve a project is
uncertain, the EIR must contain facts and analysis which explain: (1) the likelihood of deficit in
the future, and (2) what alternative sources of supply will cure the deficit. Alternative sources of
supply must contain details and estimates concerning the amount of water each alternative might
make available. Simply acknowledging a potential water de�ciency and identifying general
unquantified sources, such as "desalination," is not enough.
Vineyard Area Citizens For Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova,127
(, Cal. App. 4th 490 (2005), review granted
Although Vineyard was based on facts that are very similar to California Oak, the court
reached in the opposite conclusion. In Vineyard, the court found that the lead agency fully
satisfied its CEQA obligations by certifying an EIR that identified future water supplies and
imposing conditions restricting the amount of development based on the available supplies.
While Vineyard has been taken up by the California Supreme Court and no longer constitutes
reliable authority, environmental attorneys are hopeful that the Supreme Court will reaffirm the
Vineyard case's holdings and disapprove contrary authorities such as California Oak.
The project in Vineyard involves the future development of 6,415 acres within the City of
Rancho Cordova into residential and commercial uses, including approximately 22,500 dwelling
units. Sacramento County analyzed the impacts of the proposed development in a Draft EIR,
which was later revised and recirculated to include a new water supply plan. After several
hearings, the County ceRiiied the EIR, over the objections of petitioner and others who presented
a letter from an expert geologist criticizing the EIR. Among other things, petitioner challenged:
(1) the sufficiency of the groject's water supply plan, and (2) the EIR's analysis of the
environmental impacts from groundwater pumped to serve the project.
As revised and recirculated, the EIR identified a two phase approach to development of
adequate water supplies to serve the project. In the frst phase, water will be supplied by the
North Vineyard Well Field ("NVWF"). This well feld had been moved from the project site
five miles south to distance the groundwater pumping from a plume of contamination underlying
the neighboring Aerojet property. The NVWF falls within the purview of the 1999 Water Forum
5
S AC R AMENi'OU B U CKM AN�28 590.1
Plan ("WFP"), a massive, multi jurisdictional water supply plan that limits the amount of water
that can be pumped from the NVWF. In the second phase, water will be supplied by Sacramento
County Water Agency's "Zone 40" plan. This plan, although not complete and presently
undergoing environmental review, will exact fees from future development to pay for new water
facilities.
The RRDEIR noted that Sacramento County Water Agency had recently secured water
supply contracts from the Bureau of Reclamation to supply back-up water to both the WFP and
the Zone 40 programs. Another contract was still being negotiated. These water supply
contracts will provide a surface water system that can be used when local groundwater supplies
are inadequate.
When the project was approved, a condition was placed on the development requiring
that adequate water supplies be available before each phase of building could proceed. On this
basis, the court distinguished those cases where the environmental documents completely failed
to identify potential sources of water for projects. Here, the RRDEIR did identify water sources,
even if incomplete, and discussed a reasonable range of water supply scenarios. The court cited
approvingly to Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors, 91
Cal. App. 4th 342, 373 (2001), "which suggests that an EIR is adequate if it identifies and
analyzes potential sources of water even though the final availability of those sources is not
confirmed." Consequently, the court affirmed that the RRDEIR's analysis of the project's water
supply plans was adequate.
Water suppliers throughout the state were pleased with the sensible, praciical Court of
Appeals decision in Vineyard. It is hoped that the California Supreme Court will afiirm the
Court of Appeals' finding that a combination of conditions restricting housing development to
available water supplies and specific plans for development of future water sources is sufficient
for a project's water supply analysis to pass muster under CEQA. The Vineyard case has been
fully briefed to the Supreme Court and is expected to be heard some time after April 12, 2006.
BIG BOX DEVELOPMENT AND URBAN BLIGHT
Since the decision in Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield, 124
Cal. App. 4th 1184 (2004), announced that lead agencies must study the "urban blight" impacts
stemming from their approval of large retail projects such as Wal-Mart Supercenters, planners
and environmental consultants have scrambled to determine how they can satisfy this new
requirement. The Anderson First Coalition case provides the first published guidance on how
much urban blight analysis is enough. Anderson upheld the City's urban blight analysis, which
included an economic study showing the project would help the City capture sales tax revenues
lost to neighboring towns, and documents showing that the City had created a redevelopment
district to assess blight impacts in the downtown area. However, Anderson invalidated the
project's "fair-share" mitigation fee for cumulative traffic impacts because: (1) the fees had not
been calculated correctly, (2) the fees covered only Phase I of the improvements, but should
include the "remaining reasonable costs of the improvements," and (3) the language of the
mitigation measure was "too vague" about the improvements to which the fees were allocated.
Id. at 1189.
6
SACRAMEN'TOV BUCKMAN128590.1
� Andersort First Coalition v. City of Anderson,130 Cal. App. 4th 1173 (2005)
This case overruled a CEQA challenge to the City's approval of a downtown retail
project which included a Wal-Mart store, three other retail pads and a gas station. Plaintiff
alleged that the EIR impermissibly failed to adequately analyze the project's urban decay, traffic,
and hydrology impacts, and that the project was inconsistent with the City's general plan and
zoning code. The trial court agreed that the EIR failed to adequately analyze the trafiic and air
quality impacts associated with the gas station but upheld the EIR and project approvals in all
other aspects. The City remedied the defect by severing the gas station, re-certifying the EIR,
and reapproving the project without the gas station.
On appeal, the court upheld this approach. The record confirmed that the deficiencies in
the EIR's traffic and air quality analysis related only to the gas station's impacts, not to any other
portion of the Project. Based on this, and the power given to courts to tailor the CEQA remedy
narrowly to fit the violation, the court approved the City's actions.
Next, the court considered whether the City properly concluded that the potential for
urban decay and blight were less than significant. Economic and social impacts of a proposed
project are outside CEQA's scope unless those impacts could result in a reasonably foreseeable
environmental impact. In Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield, 124 Cal.
App. 4th 1184 (2004), the court found the City of Bakersfield's EIR for a Wal-Mart project
inadequate because it failed to consider the "urban decay" impacts the operation of the Wal-Mart
would have on other local businesses.
�
'- For its project, the City of Anderson prepared an EIR that considered the impacts of the
Wal-Mart center on other local businesses. Petitioner claimed the EIR did not meet the
Bakersfield standard because its analysis was inadequate. In rejecting this claim, the Anderson
court relied on evidence in the record which included: (1) an economic study showing the
project would help the City capture sales tax revenues lost to neighboring towns, and
(2) documents showing that the City had created a redevelopment district to assess blight impacts
in the downtown area. There was conflicting evidence in the record, and other evidence tended
to show the potential for the project to contribute to urban decay and blight. However, because
substantial evidence in the record supported the City's conclusion, the court was therefore
compelled to uphold it. Petitioner also argued that the project would cause blight in other cities
and areas, but the court found this claim was too speculative to require analysis in the EIR.
The second part of the Anderson First Coalition case is equally important because it deals
with common themes related to mitigation of a project's cumulative traffic impacts on freeway
interchanges. Unfortunately, the holding of this part of the case provides little clarification on
this important topic, and, in fact, may further confuse the issues.
As mitigation for increasing traffic, the EIlt required the project to contribute a fair share
of the costs needed to upgrade the nearby Interstate-5 interchange. The Anderson First Coalition
petitioner contended that the City's traffic mitigation measures were invalid because they were
speculative and unenforceable and because they should have been analyzed as part of the Wal-
Mart project. The court approved the concept of adopting mitigation measures intended to
address the traffic impacts from several projects but noted that the measures must be based on a
7
SACRAMENTOUB UCKM AN128S90.1
� "reasonable plan of actual mitigation that the relevant agency commits itself to implementing."
The court invalidated the project's "fair-share" cumulative trafiic mitigation fee because: (1) the
fees had not been calculated correctly, (2) the fees covered only Phase I of the improvements, but
should include the "remaining reasonable costs of the improvements," and (3} the language of
the mitigation measure was "too vague" about the improvements to which the fees were
allocated. Anderson First Coalition at 1189.
T'he court's first and second holdings are understandable, as they are based on: (1) an
obvious arithmetic error, and (2) apparent concerns that the interchange improvements would not
be fully funded, and thus not fully mitigated, because the costs of construction might exceed the
estimates. Unfortunately, the third holding — that the mitigation measure was "vague regarding
"the program to provide [those] improvements" — is itself vague and difficult to grasp. The
court recognized that "the City does not have total control over the improvements to the I-5
interchange; CalTrans has an important part to play as well." Anderson First Coalition, at 1189.
However, staff reports stated that the City had been preparing an update to the Traffic Impact
Fee Program to include the freeway interchange improvements. Id. at 1188-89. There was "no
serious dispute regarding the current cost estimates for the improvements to the I-5 interchange,"
and improvements were segmented into phases. Thus, the evidence in the record suggests there
was substantial detail about how and when the necessary freeway improvements would be
completed.
The court's concern about the "vagueness" of the mitigation measure is not immediately
apparent. Perhaps the court meant that the mitigation measure required the completion of the
t, update to the Traffic Impact Fee Program. Alternatively, the court may have been concerned
about the City's lack of control over the freeway interchange. The court could have felt that the
City should have recognized the potential that the mitigation measure would fail because
CalTrans has jurisdiction over the interchange and could delay or veto the proposed
improvements. Unfortunately, the case provides little hint of the court's reasoning on this critical
point.
The court did reject petitioner's claim that the future I-5 interchange improvements
should have been analyzed as part of the development project. Because impacts jointly caused
by several projects, such as traffic impacts, may be reduced through joint mitigation measures
implemented at a later time, it was appropriate for the City to exclude the I-5 interchange
improvements from the project description, as long as the improvements themselves were subject
to environmental review at a future date.
Given the lack of clarity in the Anderson First Coalition decision on cumulative traffic
mitigation measures, it may be prudent for lead agencies to make findings of potential signi�cant
impacts and adopt statements of overriding considerations for development projects with
potential impacts on freeway interchanges, even when the development project has been required
to contribute fees to fund freeway interchange improvements.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS
Like Anderson First Coalition, Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange, 131 Cal.
App. 4th 777 (2005), also considered the efficacy of fees in mitigating traffic impacts. Among other
8
SACRAMENTOUB UCKMA�V�28590.1
� things, Endangered Habitats League confirmed that fees cannot be deemed adequate to mitigate traffic
impacts when the fees are meant only to fund a study and the improvements to be supported by the fees
have not been specified.
Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange, 131 Cal. App. 4th 777 (2005)
In this case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal invalidated an EIR for two residential
development projects because: (1) the traffic analysis methodology conflicted with the County's
General Plan and the proper method of analysis showed that traffic would exceed what the
General Plan pernutted; (2) the biological impacts analysis failed to follow the mandatory
thresholds of significance; and (3) noise mitigation measures were improperly defened.
Regarding the County's traffic analysis, the growth management policies of the County's
General Plan required that a traffic level of service of "C" or better, as assessed under the
Highway Capacity Manual ("HCM") method, be maintained on Santiago Canyon Road. Using
the HCM method, the level of service with the project's traffic was projected to fall to a"D/E"
level by 2005 and an "E" level by 2020. For the EIR, the County performed a new analysis
using a different method of calculating a project's traffic impacts, the Volume/Capacity Ratio
("V/C") method. Under the V/C method, the level of service with the project would be a"B" in
both 2005 and 2020. In approving the project, the County's findings relied on the V/C method to
deternune that the project's traffic impacts were less than significant, stating, "The V/C
methodology is considered more representative of actual conditions .... Project impacts to
Santiago Canyon Road, therefore, are considered less than signiiicant."
(
The developer argued that the County did not really rely on the V/C method and all that
happened was "clumsy wording of the Board's findings that mention the V/C method." The
court angrily rejected this argument as a"flat out" misrepresentation of the record.
The developer then argued that required mitigation measures would reduce the project's
traffic impacts below a level of signiiicance even under the HCM method. The mitigation
measures required contributions to two separate road improvement programs for Santiago
Canyon Road. However, the court faulted the mitigation for two reasons: (1) it was not clear
from the EIlZ or the record that the mitigation measures would achieve an acceptable level of
service measured under the HCM method, and (2) the mitigation measures were inadequate to
prove that the project's traf�c impacts would be reduced below a level of significance, since the
fees would be applied to fund additional traffic studies and there was no evidence what
improvements would be funded by the fees. Thus, the traffc analysis in the EIR demonstrated
that the project was inconsistent with the General Plan's growth management policy requiring a
level of service of "C" or better on Santiago Canyon Road. Notably, the court overturned the
project approvals for violating the planning and zoning law mandating that development projects
comply with the applicable General Plan, rather than for defects in the CEQA analysis per se.
(This distinction is important because consistency with a General Plan generally is more difficult
to remedy.)
The court also found for petitioners on two other aspects of the environmental impacts
analysis, biological resources and noise. The argument on the biological resources analysis
turned on whether the EIR failed to evaluate all the mandatory topics regarding biological
9
SACR AMENTOU B UCKMAN�? 8590.1
� resources. The EIR's threshold of significance included only those impacts that would make a
' species threatenec� or endangered or might reduce plant or animal communities to below
statewide or regional self-perpetuating levels. This threshold resulted in incomplete analysis
because State CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 mandates that the lead agency also analyze
whether the project will have significant impacts which substantially reduce the habitat of fish or
wildlife species, threaten to eliminate fish or wildlife species, or reduce the number or restricts
the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species. Because the County did not consider all
of the topics required by Section 15065, its biological reso�rces analysis was invalid. This
holding serves as a good reminder to lead agencies to check to make sure they are using current
versions of the Guidelines (and any applicable municipal storm water permit terms) as the basis
of their Initial Study checklists; the BBK checklists provided with these forms are updated each
year to reflect the current text of the State Guidelines and other applicable regulatory
requirements.
Finally, petitioner contended that the County impermissibly deferred mitigation of noise
and 10 other categories of impacts. The court rejected most of petitioner's arguments but agreed
that the EIR impermissibly defened the analysis and mitigation of the project's noise impacts.
The EIR required the developer, before obtaining a grading permit, to submit an acoustical
analysis describing the "exterior noise environment" and "preliminazy mitigation measures, if
required." Before a building permit could be issued, the developer had to submit another
acoustical report to demonstrate that structures had been designed to meet "exterior and interior
noise standards" satisfactory to the County.
This type of language is a classic example of the improper deferral of analysis and
mitigation. The EIR cannot satisfy its duty as a disclosure document if the analysis of the
relevant impacts is not included in the EIR. Moreover, the County's mitigation for potential
noise impacts required only the prepazation of a report showing that noise was reduced to
satisfactory levels. Thus, the County had impermissibly deferred analysis and mitigation of the
project's potential noise impacts.
BASELINE
The definition of the appropriate environmental baseline continues to be a hot topic in
CEQA litigation. Section 15125 of the State CEQA Guidelines sets forth the general rule that
environmental conditions existing at the time environmental analysis is commenced "normally"
constitute the baseline for purposes of determining whether an impact is signi�cant, but the lead
agency has discretion to establish a different baseline when it is appropriate.
As these most recent cases indicate, the deiinition of the baseline is key to adequate
environmental analysis because the impacts attributable to the project must be measured against
existing conditions. For example, in County Sanitation Dist. No. 2, the baseline included
application of sewage sludge generated in Los Angeles to land in Kern County, so an ordinance
restricting that application could have significant traffic impacts by causing sludge generators to
have to travel greater distances to dispose of their waste. In Lighthouse Field Beach, the baseline
included messy conditions resulting from droppings of unleashed dogs, but the court found that
the city needed to analyze the impacts of implementing changing the park's official policy from
leashing requirements to no-leashing.
10
S ACRAMENTOU B UCKMANL?8590. I
� County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 of I.os Angeles County v. County of Kern,127 Cal. App.
4th 1544 (2005)
In this case, the Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District ruled that the County of
Kern was required to prepare an EIR before adopting an ordinance that restricted the amount and
type of sewage sludge that can be applied to agricultural fields. The court reasoned that the
ordinance created the potential for environmental impacts caused by alternative methods of
sewage sludge disposal. Although the project would benefit the environment by reducing the
amount of certain types of sewage sludge being applied to agricultural lands, the project would
potentially impact the environment as compared to baseline conditions because sewage sludge
would have to be transported further for disposal and farmers would increase their use of
chemical fertilizers.
The treatment of human sanitary wastes results in sewage sludge, and, after further
treatment, dried biosolids. Sewage sludge and biosolids are classified according to their level of
treatment, such that "exceptional quality" biosolids contain less gollutants and other materials
than Class B biosolids. In California, sewage sludge and biosolids can be stored, buried,
incinerated, or applied to land as a fertilizer.
In 1998, approximately one-third of all biosolids applied to land in California were
applied to the agricultural fields of Kern County. Many Kern County farmers relied on this
sewage sludge as an affordable and readily available source of fertilizer. The City of Los
Angeles, Los Angeles County, Orange County, and the City of Fresno each elim.inated much of
� their sewage sludge by shipping it to Kern County farmers.
In 1999, after several years of study, the County enacted an ordinance which forbade the
land application of Class B biosolids after January 1, 2003. Land application of "exceptional
quality" biosolids remained unaffected. Petitioners challenged the County's adoption of the
ordinance under CEQA and a variety of other grounds.
The County argued that the ordinance was effective only in Kern County and only the
impacts to Kern County land subject to the ordinance should be considered for CEQA purposes.
Because the overall effect of the ordinance would produce environmental benefits to Kern
County, the County argued that the ordinance had no signi�cant environmental impacts and no
EIR was required. The court agreed that the ordinance could have a beneficial effect on Kern
County's environment, however, the court found that the County had inappropriately restricted
its environmental analysis to Kern County. Instead, the County should have evaluated whatever
physical conditions will be affected by the proposed project, regardless of their locations.
Specifically, the court found that the County could reasonably foresee that its adoption of
the ordinance would cause environmental impacts because sewage sludge generators find
alternative disposal methods for sludge, such as: (i) trucking the sludge further distances for
disposal, (ii) disposing of the sludge in a landfill, or (iii) treating the sludge to "exceptional
quality" such that it could be spread on Kern County lands. Each of these alternatives included
the potential for creating environmental impacts such as additional air pollution, loss of landiill
capacity, and increased consumption of energy and other resources.
11
SACRAMENTOV BUCKMAN128590. l
� Further, it was reasonably foreseeable that Kern County farmers would react to the
ordinance by using alternative fertilizers, such as animal manure and chemical fertilizers. The
court found that using substitute fertilizers had potential environmental impacts such as increased
air pollution, water pollution, and impacts to soil quality.
1'he County argued that the actual reactions of sludge generators and farmers were
unknown, but the court rejected this argument, finding that the County could reasonably
anticipate the reaction to its ordinance and therefore should have analyzed the effects of that
reaction. The court allowed the ordinance to remain in effect hut directed the County to
complete the EIR in good faith.
This case confrmed that an EIR may be required to analyze potentially significant
environmental impacts, even where the project's overall impact is beneficial. Further, this case
clariiied that CEQA review must evaluate the environmental impacts of the project wherever
they manifest, regardless of the distance from the project's actual location. These two principles
are supported by established CEQA caselaw, and both appear sound.
The court's reasoning on the County's duty to analyze these parties' disposal of sewage
sludge seems a bit more dubious. Although the County's adoption of the ordinance was intended
to address the issues associated with sewage sludge disposal, the County did not create any of the
sewage sludge and has no ability to contrfll its disposal. It seems more appropriate for the entity
disposing of the sludge, rather than the entity receiving it, to analyze the environmental impacts
associated with its disposal. Indeed, this case directly conflicts with the Fifth District's prior
decision in Magan v. County of Kings, 105 Cal. App. 4th 468 (2002). In Magan, the plaintiff
argued that an ordinance Kings County adopted to restrict the application of sewage sludge had
potential environmental impacts because it would shift the impact of sewage sludge application
to other jurisdictions in California. Id. at 477. However, the Magan court upheld the County's
reliance on a categorical exemption, finding that the plaintiffs arguments did not present
substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact. "[Appellant's] speculation about future
actions by the sewage sludge producing entities is outside the scope of the ordinance and, in any
event, such speculative concerns are too vague and imprecise far any meaningful environmental
assessment." Id.
It does not appear to be possible to reconcile the courts' holdings in these cases. Of the
two cases, Magan appears to be the better-reasoned, and it enjoys the advantage of being
consistent with the Supreme Court's recent pronouncement that the Coastal Commission need
not examine the impacts of projects outside its jurisdictional area because the agency has no
authority over those projects. See Sierra Club v. California Coastal Commission, 35 Cal. 4th
839 (2005), discussed below. Given the unclear state of the law in this area, though, agencies
considering ordinances such as this may want to take a conservative approach and undertake
more extensive environmental review to ensure that their CEQA documents can withstand any
subsequent legal challenge.
Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz, 131 Cal. App. 4th 1170 (2005)
Lighthouse Field revisits the issue of how the lead agency should deiine the baseline
when faced with existing physical conditions that are arguably illegal. Lighthouse Field also has
12
SACRAMENTOUB UCKMAIV�8590. I
�� the distinction of having the strangest fact pattern of any of the 2005 CEQA cases: the baseline
at issue is the amount of dog droppings on a public beach in Santa Cruz that has been open to
off-leash dogs.
The Sixth Appellate District overturned the City of Santa Cruz's approval of a General
Plan revision for the beach which would have forbidden the use of sensitive biological habitat
areas but allowed owners to unleash their dogs. The court concluded that the City's negative
declaration relied on an incorrect baseline in analyzing the potential environmental impacts
associated with allowing unleashed dogs to use the beach. Thus, even though there was no
substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument that a significant environmental
impact would result, the court overturned the City's proposed General Plan revision.
The beach at issue is a designated state beach which is under the control of the State
Department of Parks and Recreation but is locally administered by the City pursuant to
contractual operating agreements. The 1977 operating agreement between the Department of
Parks and Recreation and the City provided that rules and regulations adopted by the City for the
beach "shall conform to and be consistent with the rules and regulations adopted by [the State]
and generally applicable to the State Park System...." In 1984, the City adopted a General Plan
which required that all pets on the beach be restrained to leashes. Despite this restriction, in
1993 the City permitted dogs to be off-leash during certain hours with the hope that dog owners
would cooperate with law enforcement personnel in a way that might allow the further relaxation
of the leash restrictions. A subsequent memo from the City's Park and Recreation Department
�acknowledged that dogs were frequently seen off-leash during impermissible times, pet waste
, receptacles were severely vandalized, and the beach was littered with pet droppings.
Beginning in 2002, the City considered arnending its General Plan for the beach to
eliminate the leash requirement. Before the City acted, the District Superintendent for the State
Department of Parks and Recreation issued an order that: (1) authorized off-leash dog use of the
beach park from sunrise to 10:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to sunset and (2) allowed leashed dogs
in the park at all other times but (3) prohibited dogs from one portion of the beach.
The City's draft amendment to its General Plan proposed to continue to allow off-leash
dog use in certain areas. On the recommendation of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the
language in the General Plan was changed to read: "California Department of Parks and
Recreation policies on Dogs in State Parks will be utilized to determine dog use at Lighthouse
[F]ield [S]tate Beach." The proposed negative declaration for the General Plan amendment was
then circulated for public review.
The City received many letters criticizing the proposed amendment on grounds that
unleashed dogs had severely degraded the quality and enjoyment of the beach. The California
Coastal Commission noted "the most controversial and publicly discussed aspect of the Plan [is]
whether to continue to allow dogs at Lighthouse Field State Beach." Because of the controversy
surrounding the unleashed dog policy, the City and the State Department of Parks and Recreation
each announced that any dog issues would be addressed at a future time.
The City's planning commission expressed concerns as to the adequacy of the negative
declaration and voted not to recommend adoption of the negative declaration or approval of the
13
SACRAM ENTOUBUCKMAN�28590. I
General Plan amendment. The City Council rejected the Planning Commission's
� recommendation, �nding that unleashed dogs were currently allowed on the beach by the
Department of Parks and Recreation and the City's 1993 policy and the amendment would not
change the existing environmental baseline.
On appeal, petitioner alleged that the City's description of the environmental setting was
inadequate because it did not give a detailed account of the damage that dogs have caused to the
beach. The court rejected this argument, holding that the negative declaration adeyuately
described the site's conditions, existing facilities, and recreational uses by both people and dogs.
However, the court found that the City failed to adequately analyze the impact of
unleashed dogs on the environment. The City argued that there would be no impact, and hence
no need for a discussion, because the project did nothing to change the existing off-leash dog use
of the beach. The court agreed that the correct baseline by which to judge the amendment's
potential impacts was the current condition of the beach, including the current levels of off-leash
dog usage. However, the court found that the project eliminated the General Plan's prohibition
of off-leash dog use at the Beach. In the court's view, this constituted a change that had the
potential to alter the intensity and pattern of off-leash dog usage. The court seemed to be
concerned that the City's 1993 off-leash policy was illegal or improper. The court dismissed the
fact that the City was required to operate the beach in compliance with the policies of the State
Department of Parks and Recreation and the District Superintendent for State Parks had issued
an order allowing off-leash dog usage.
� Interestingly, though, the court stopped short of ordering the City to prepare an EIR
because the administrative record did not contain substantial evidence showing that the General
Plan amendment had a potential environmental impact. The majority of the comments received
addressed social concerns such as the propriety of off-leash dog use, rather than environmental
impacts. The remainder of the comment letters addressed the existing environmental conditions
at the beach. As such, these comments did not show the potential for environmental impacts
above the already existing baseline. Because the court found no record evidence that significant
environmental impacts may result from the project, the court ruled that it could not determine
whether an EIR was required. Instead, the court ordered the City to: (1) redraft its initial study
to include the additional analysis of policy change, and (2) deternune, on the basis of the revised
initial study, whether a negative declaration or an EIR should be prepared.
In the past few years, a number of cases have addressed how the lead agency should
define the baseline when faced with azguably illegal or unsubstantiated uses of property.
Unfortunately, Lighthouse Beach sheds little light on this tricky topic. Lighthouse Beach seems
to be in direct conflict with Fat v. County of Sacramento, 97 Cal. App. 4th 1270 (2002), which
held that, even where the existing environmental conditions have been degraded by illegal
activities, those existing conditions normally constitute the baseline for purposes of conducting
environmental review of a proposed project. Under Fat and its predecessor cases, Bloom v.
McGurk, 26 Cal. App. 4th 1307 (1994}, and Riverwatch v. County of San Diego, 76 Cal. App.
4th 1428 (1999), the lead agency's reliance on existing environmental conditions as the baseline
will be upheld as long as its choice is supported by substantial evidence.
14
SACRAMENTOU BUC KMAN128590. I
Lighthouse Beach, on the other hand, harkens back to a concurring opinion in Lewis v.
� Seventeenth Dist. Agricultural Assn., 165 Cal. App. 3d 823 (1985), which suggested that, when a
racetrack had been expanded without undergoing environmental review, the expansion should
not be considered part of the baseline. Id. at 838. A recent case, Save Our Peninsula Committee
v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, 87 Ca1. App. 4th 99 (2001), seemed to concur with the
Lewis court's less deferential approach to baselines. In Save Our Peninsula, the appellate court
found that the evidence supporting the agency's choice of baseline for water use was not
sufficient enough to constitute substantial evidence, and the EIR's water supply analysis was
overturned based on this defect.
The Fat line of cases appear to be better reasoned and more appropriate, given the
deferential standards of judicial review that are supposed to apply to a public agency's CEQA
determinations, including its choice of baseline. However, in light of the conflicting authorities,
further guidance from the courts or the Legislature will be needed before public agencies can
comfortably navigate this difiicult area.
CHALLENGES TO REDEVELOPMENT PROTECTS
Redevelopment projects continue to generate CEQA litigation, largely because lead
agencies are unclear on the extent to which the EIR certified for the Redevelopment Plan
satisfies CEQA review requirements for subsequently implemented phases or projects of the
plan. Fortunately, in 2005, the courts provided some guidance for lead agencies on this subject.
First, CREED v. City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency confirmed that, to the extent the
( Redevelopment Plan EIR contemplates and adequately analyzes the potential environmental
' impacts of the subsequent project, the redevelopment agency may rely on that EIR as the
environmental review document. CREED also held that the "fair argument" standard does not
apply to judicial review of an agency's determination that a project is within the scope of the
previously certified Redevelopment Plan EIR.
Lincoln Place also dealt with the scope of the project approved in the Redevelopment
Plan. In that case, the court found that the redevelopment project necessarily included not only
the approved construction but also the necessary demolition of the buildings currently located on
the project site. Lincoln Place also held that either: (1) the demolition had to comply with the
mitigation measures imposed on the redevelopment project when the redevelopment project EIR
was certiiied, or (2) if substantial evidence showed that those mitigation measures were no
longer feasible, the City had to make a finding supporting that conclusion and prepare a
Supplemental EIR to analyze the environmental impacts of the demolition.
CREED v. City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency, 134 Cal. App. 4th 598 (2005).
In July 2002, a developer submitted an application to construct a 30-story, 450-room
hotel in downtown San Diego. The City's Redevelopment Agency, determined that the project's
potentially significant environmental impacts had been sufficiently analyzed in two previous
EIR's prepared for The Redevelopment Plan Area. The Agency determined no additional
environmental review was necessary. Petitioner's lawsuit sought to compel preparation of a
project-specifc EIR to analyze the hotel's impacts.
15
SACRAMENTOV BUCKMAN128S90.1
Relying on language in CEQA Section 21090(b), petitioner alleged that "every project
( undertaken as part of a redevelopment plan [has] to receive project-speciiic environmental
review unless the plan itself was the subject of a project EIR." Petitioner claimed that the
program EIR prepared for The Agency's Redevelopment Plan did not qualify so projects
undertaken pursuant to the plan needed to undergo additional environmental review.
The court rejected this claim, finding that CEQA does not require additional project-
specific environmental review for redevelopment projects whose environmental effects have
been adequately studied in a program EIIZ. When the agency determines that a previously
certified program EIR adequately discloses and analyzes the environmental consequences of the
specific activity, then the agency may proceed with the decision on the basis of the existing
environmental record.
Because the hotel project was not proposed until after the program EIR and SEIR were
certiiied, petitioner contended reliance on those documents violated CEQA. To the extent the
program EIR contemplates and adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the
project, it may serve as the environmental review document for a subsequently proposed project.
Petitioner also alleged that the Agency's decision not to require preparation of an EIR
should be reviewed under the "fair argument" standard. The "fair argument" standard provides
that an agency must prepare an EIlZ "whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial
evidence that the project may have signiiicant environmental impact." (No Oil, Inc. v. City of
Los Angeles (1974) 13 Ca1.3d 68, 75.)
(
The fair argument standard does not apply to judicial review of an agency's
determination that a project is within the scope of a previously completed EIR. Rather, once an
agency has prepared an EIR, its decision not to prepare a supplemental or subsequent EIR for a
later project is reviewed under the deferential "substantial evidence" standard. Under this
standard, the reviewing court will uphold an agency's decision not to require a supplemental or
subsequent EIR if the administrative record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support
the determination that the major modifications of the EIR are not required. This deferential
standard is a reflection of the fact that in-depth review has already occurred.
Lincoln Place Tenants Association v. City of Los Angeles (Los Angeles Lincoln Place
Investors Ltd.), 130 Cal. App. 4th 1491 (2005)
Lincoln Place involved a redevelopment project which proposed to demolish a mid-
century garden apartment complex in the Venice Beach area of Los Angeles. The court found
that the City violated CEQA by issuing demolition pernuts for structures within the complex
without either requiring compliance with the mitigation measures intended to reduce impacts to
historical resources or conducting additional environmental review of its decision to waive those
mitigation measures.
Experts disagreed about whether the complex's architecture qualifed it as a cultural or
historic resource. After seven years of litigation on affordable housing issues, the project was
reconsidered in 1994. The city council found that the complex was not a historical resource,
recertified the EIR and reapproved the project with mitigation measures requiring that, prior to
16
SACRAMBNTOU BIJCKiV1ANG?8590. I
�' . demolition of any structures: (1) photographs be taken to document the typical exterior and
� interior features, (2) drawings be made of each type of unit and of the overall site plan, and (3)
the structures be offered for sale and removal to a new location. T'he city council found that,
with this mitigation, the project's impacts on historical resources would be reduced below a level
of significance.
Following the city council's approval of the redevelopment project, the State Historical
Resources Commission determined that the complex was eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places. The owners of the apartment complex then filed an application for a
permit to demolish five structures on Lalce Street. Based on the owners' claim that the Lake
Street demolition was not part of the previously approved redevelopment project, the City issued
the demolition pernuts without requiring the owner to comply with the historical resources
mitigation measures.
The court first rejected the owners' claim that the demolition of the structures was not
part of the redevelopment project the City previously approved. The owners claimed that the
City had merely approved a tract map to build new buildings on the propeRy, and the demolition
of the old buildings therefore was not part of the redevelopment project. Somewhat testily, the
court labeled this argument "disingenuous at best," particularly since the EIR for the
redevelopment project admitted, "The applicant proposes to demolish 795 apartments grouped in
52 buildings."
Still unconstrained by reality, the owners then argued that the mitigation measures
( requiring them to document the complex and offer the units for sale were not triggered until "we
start building." Again, this argument was premised on the notion that the redevelopment project
did not include the demolition needed to allow construction of the redevelopment project. The
court rejected this argument as well, noting the mitigation measures explicitly stated that they
applied "prior to demolition." Indeed, the owners' argument would have rendered the mitigation
measures illusory, because it would be impossible to document or offer for sale units that had
already been demolished.
The court then noted that, although the City could not ignore the mitigation measures it
had imposed on the redevelopment project, it could modify or delete them if: (1) the City found
them to be infeasible, and (2) that conclusion was supported by substantial evidence. The court
suggested that the deletion of a mitigation measure under such circumstances may require the
preparation of a Supplemental EIR.
The court's holding regarding preparation of a Supplemental EIR makes sense in the
context of a proposal to delete a mitigation measure that was relied upon to support a iinding that
the project's impacts had been mitigated below a level of significance: if the mitigation measure
were subsequently found to be infeasible and deleted, then the previously identified impact
would be re-categorized as signiiicant. A Supplemental EIR would be needed to analyze the
impacts of that signiiicant impact. However, if the mitigation measure was not required or relied
upon to reduce the project's impacts below a level of significance, then the lead agency should be
able to delete it without preparing a Supplemental EIR. The key factor should be whether the
project, with that mitigation measure deleted, has significant environmental impacts that were
not evaluated in the previously certified EIR.
17
SACRAMENTOU B UC KMAN128590.1
HISTORICAL IMPACTS
Historical impacts can be challenging because many historical buildings are privately
owned but tney are often also old and in need of renovation. While CEQA provides that a
renovation project will not have a significant impact on a historical resource if the renovation
meets certain federal standards, the cost of renovating to those standards is prohibitive for many
private home or building owners. On the other hand, the cost of an EIR — which is required for
a renovation project that will adversely impact historical resources not performed to federal
standards — is also quite steep. Local agencies often find themselves caught between trying to
help average citizens make desired property improvements, sometimes for seismic or other
safety considerations, and trying to ensure protection of their local historic resources. One 2005
case helps resolve one aspect of this problem by squarely holding that a private homeowner's
renovations to the interior of his historic residence do not impact public historic resources and
therefore are not subject to CEQA review.
Martin v. City and County of San Francisco,135 Cal. App. 4th 392 (2005)
In this case, the court held that CEQA did not apply to interior modiiications of a private
residence located in a state and national historic district. The court concluded that such
modiiications were not within CEQA's meaning of "environment" and that the application of
CEQA to such modifications was not within the spirit of the law.
The petitioner owned a San Francisco house which was constructed in 1853 and
remodeled in 1893 by the famous architect Willis Polk. His house was designated as a City
landmark in 1977, and in 1988 his neighborhood was listed on the National Register of Historical
Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. Neither his house nor its interior
features were individually listed on the national or state registers.
In 2001, the petitioner applied to the City and County of San Francisco for a building
permit to remodel portions of the home's interior. The City, through its planning department,
determined that the home was a historical resource and that his plans for renovating his home
would result in "a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource." Based
on this finding, the City conditioned any possible future approval of the building permit on his
compliance with CEQA review.
Petitioner brought suit against the City seeking a declaratory judgment that the proposed
renovations were not subject to CEQA and that the City had no discretion under its law to deny
the building pernut. The court found that the City had "almost plenary discretion" in
determining whether to issue a building permit. Nonetheless, the court concluded that the City
could not condition the renovations on CEQA compliance. State CEQA Guidelines Section
15301, exempts from CEQA the interior or exterior alterations of an existing private structure
which entail negligible or no expansion of existing uses. Moreover, CEQA is only triggered by
discretionary actions which may have "a signiiicant effect on the environment." "Environment"
must encompass something more than what is perceivable only by one person. Changes to the
"environment" must be publicly perceptible and include more than mere unobservable changes
to the inside of a private home. Thus, the modification of a single family residence in a manner
that is not perceptible or observable to the public is not an action which triggers CEQA.
18
SACRAMENTOV BUCKM A!�iM28590.1
C
THRESHOLDS OF SIG1vIFICANCE
In light of the 2003 Communities for a Better Environment decision invalidating portions
of the 1998 State CEQA Guidelines relating to thresholds of significance, lead agencies and
courts continue to struggle with how to define and apply thresholds of significance, particularly
when the lead agency defines the threshold of significance as a standard set by another agency,
such as "will the project exceed any applicable water quality standards?" One of the 2005 cases,
Californians for Alternatives to Tozics v. Department of Food & Agriculture, 136 Cal. App. 4th
(2005), reaffirms the Communities for a Better Environment holding that a project's mere
satisfaction of another agency's regulatory standard does not equate to a lack of environmental
impact. Accordingly, the lead agency must perform its own, independent analysis of the
project's potential impacts in that area.
Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Department of Food & Agriculture,136 Cal.
App. 4th (2005)
This case concerned the Department of Food and Agriculture's pesticide program to
eradicate the Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter (GWS threatens wine grape crops in California by
spreading a bacteria that kills grapevines by clogging their water conducting vessels.) Due to the
aggressive nature of the GWS, the California l.egislature enacted emergency legislation in 2Q00
to combat Pierce's Disease and protect California's 50 billion dollar grape industry. The
legislation authorized the Department to maintain, establish and enforce the Pierce's Disease
Control Program.
<<
In July 2000, the Department adopted emergency regulations for the PDCP to eradicate
the spread of the pest. Because the program was an emergency, it was exempt from CEQA.
However, the Department later decided to continue the emergency program as a long-term
project and notified the public of its intent to prepare an EIR.
The draft EIR included a rapid response to use pesticides. Several environmental groups
criticized the Department's reliance on compliance with existing pesticide regulations as
inadequate to protect human health. These groups argued that the Department: (1) failed to
address the impact of three primary pesticides additives, and (2) incorrectly relied solely on
existing pesticide regulation programs to conclude there are no significant adverse impacts
associated with pesticide use rather than evaluating independently the impacts of the proposed
statewide use of the multiple pesticides.
The court agreed that the Department's reliance on DPR's regulatory program was
inadequate. While DPR registers pesticides, the Department is still responsible for analyzing the
environmental impacts of proposed pesticide uses under the PDCP. In addition, DPR's
registration of a particular pesticide does not account for specific uses of the pesticide, such as
the amount to be used, the frequency of the use and the speciiic areas of application. By relying
exclusively on the pesticides' registration status, the Department failed to analyze the
environmental consequences of PDCP's proposed statewide application program.
SACRAM ENTOUB UCKMAM28590.1
19
�
ANALYSIS OF EXTRATERRITORIAL IMPACTS
Sierra Club v. California Coastal Commission is arguably the most recent decision to
consider the scope of the lead agency's duty to analyze a project's extraterritoria] impacts. Two
recent cases, Muuy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commn., formerly 125 Cal.
App. 4th 810 (2005), and County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 of Los Angeles County v. County of
Kern, 127 Cal. App. 4th 1544 (2005}, have suggested that a lead agency has a duty to analyze the
extraterritorial impacts of its projects even when it did not cause those impacts and has no
control over them. In Muzzy Ranch, the Court of Appeal held that an airport land use
commission should have prepared an EIR to analyze the impacts that a no-growth plan would
have on the surrounding environment due to displaced development. The Supreme Court has
granted review of this case, but, to date, it has not been resolved. In the meantime, the Fifth
District Court of Appeal issued Counry Sanitation Dist. No. 2 of Los Angeles County v. County of
Kern, 127 Cal. App. 4th 1544 (2005), discussed above, which again held that the lead agency has
a duty to analyze the environmental impacts of its projects even on the actions of independent
third parties outside of its jurisdiction.
Muzzy Ranch and Counry Sanitation District No. 2 are arguably inconsistent with the
Supreme Court's pronouncement in Sierra Club. In the latter case, the Supreme Court held that
the California Coastal Commission was not required to consider the impacts of a project outside
the Coastal Zone on the Coastal Zone because the Coastal Commission's jurisdiction ends with
the Coastal Zone boundaries. Similarly, in Citizens to Enforce CEQfA v. City of Rohnert Park,
131 Cal. App. 4th 1594 (2005), the First District Court af Appeal held that the City of Rohnert
�\ Park was not required to conduct environmental review of a tribe's proposed casino project when
the casino would be located outside the City's jurisdiction.
It will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court's forthcoming Muuy Ranch
decision offers some guidance as to a lead agency's obligations to analyze a project's potential
environmental impacts when those anticipated impacts will occur outside the lead agency's
jurisdiction and ability to act.
Sierra Club v. Culifornia Coastal Commission, 35 Cal. 4th 839 (2005)
In Sierra Club v. California Coastal Commission, the Supreme Court interpreted a
provision of the California Coastal Act not to provide the Coastal Commission with authority to
regulate activities located outside the coastal zone even when those activities could create
cumulative impacts on the coastal zone. The case also considered two related CEQA arguments:
(1) that CEQA requires the Commission to consider environmental impacts in the coastal zone of
activities outside the zone, and (2) that extra record evidence showed the Commissioners
delegated review and consideration of the final EIR to its staff in violation of CEQA. The court
denied relief on both grounds.
The California Coastal Act provides that the Coastal Commission has jurisdiction over
projects within one mile of the coast. However, Section 30604(d) of the Coastal Act which
states:
SACRAMENTOUB UCKMAN�28590. I
20
�� No development or any portion thereof that is outside the coastal
`- zone shall be subject to the coastal development permit
requirements of [the Coastal Act].
The development project considered in this case straddled the coastal zone boundary.
Sierra Club, at 849. The developer prepared an EIR and received a coastal development pernut
from the Coastal Commission for the portion of the project within the coastal zone. Id. Sierra
Club challenged the Coastal Commission's issuance of the pernut, claiming that CEQA required
the Commission to assess the impacts of the development outside the Coastal Zone on areas
within coastal zone. Id. at 845. Specifically, Sierra Club argued that the Commission has a duty
to: (1) identify and evaluate all impacts on the coastal zone environment of a project that
straddles the coastal zone boundary, and (2) refrain from approving an activity with significant
impacts on the coastal environment if available feasible alternatives or mitigation measures
would substantially lessen the impacts. Id. at 858.
The court rejected these arguments. In mitigating or avoiding a project's significant
environmental effect, a public agency may exercise only those express or implied powers
provided by laws other than CEQA. This means that when an agency does not have jurisdiction
authority to act, CEQA cannot iill the gap. Sierra Club, at 859. Consequently, the court was
required to honor the limits of the Commission's authority under the Coastal Act. Id.
Sierra Club also argued that the Coastal Commission's certification of the EIlZ was
procedurally defective because the Commission did not receive and consider the EIR. Sierra
( Club's counsel submitted a declaration stating that, during a conversation with a coastal program
� analyst, the analyst had admitted that "Commission staff had not provided the [C]ity's EIR to the
Commissioners." Sierra Club, at 862-63.
The court rejected this extra-record evidence. When an administ�rative board conducting
a quasi judicial proceeding states its findings, judicial inquiry outside the administrative record
generally is precluded. Sierra Club, at 864. Because the Commission made extensive findings
that specifically cited and relied upon the City's EIlZ, the court was precluded from questioning
whether the Coastal Commission members actually received and read the EIR.
Citizens to Enforce CEQA v. City of Rohnert Park, 131 Cal. App. 4th 1594 (2005)
In this case, the First District Court of Appeal held that the City of Rohnert Park was not
required to conduct environmental review of the impacts of a tribe's proposed casino project
before executing a Memorandum of Understanding with the tribe. The only topics addressed in
the MOU were the tribe's intentions to finance and mitigate for potentiallocal impacts associated
with its future casino project. The casino would be located nearby to, but not within the City.
The court concluded that the MOU was not a project within the meaning of CEQA because it did
not commit the City to any particular action but instead merely served to establish a funding
mechanism for potential future projects. Moreover, the MOU specifically required the City to
complete CEQA review before the City took any future actions to service the casino project.
Consequently, the court concluded that the MOU was merely a government funding mechanism,
the City was not committing itself to develop the casino project, and the MOU was exempt from
CEQA.
21
SACRAMENTOU B UCK,�IAN�28590. I
�
OTHER 2005 CEOA CASES
Two of the 2005 cases do not fit neatly into any of the categories above but still contain
important, precedential CEQA holdings. These are: City of Arcadia v. State Water Resources
Control Board, 135 Cal. App. 4th 1392 (2006), which invalidated a Regional Board's proposed
amendment to a basin plan due to inadequate CEQA review of the regulation's potential
environmental impacts, and San Bernardino Associated Governments v. Superior Court, 135
Cal. App. 4th 1106 (2006), which upheld the determination of the San Bernardino Associated
Governments that a transportation ballot measure was exempt from environmental review.
City of Arcadia v. State Water Resources Control Board, 135 Cal. App. 4th 1392
(2006)
This case concerns the "zero-trash" rule adopted by the Los Angeles Regional Water
Quality Control Board and the State Water Resources Control Board for the Los Angeles River.
In 1994, the Regional Board adopted the Basin Plan to prevent local water pollution. The Basin
Plan regulates the Los Angeles River which now exists as a concrete-lined flood control channel
through Los Angeles and other intensely developed cities. After the Los Angeles River became
clogged with trash in 2001 by stormwater run off, the Regional Board proposed to amend its
Basin Plan to include a Trash TMDL. The Trash Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) discharge
limitation. The proposed trash TMDL set a numeric target of zero which would be phased in
over a 14-year period.
�` Compliance with the zero-trash TMDL could be accomplished by various methods but
��� the Board's preferred method was installation of Vortex Separation System (VSS) units to
capture trash deposited into the river by storm drains. Installation of VSSs, result in soil
disruption, increased noise levels and traffic.
The State Water Resources Control Board environmental checklist failed to comply with
CEQA. The Regional Board concluded its proposed Basin Plan could not have a signiiicant
impact on the environment, and therefore, did not prepare a negative declaration or an
environmental impact report (EIR). Because there was a fair argument that the Basin Plan could
significantly impact the environment, the Court of Appeals required the Regional Board to
prepare an EIR.
The Regional Board prepared an initial-study-type checklist to address the environmental
impacts on the proposed TMDL. Because the Board's environmental reviews are performed
under a certified regulatory program, the Regional Board is not required to prepare EIlZs,
negative declarations or initial studies. Hawever, this "exemption" is largely semantic because
the Regional Board is still required to prepare documents that serve as the functional equivalent
of documents CEQA would normally require. The "functional equivalenY' to an EIR must
include alternatives and mitigation measures that might reduce significant environmental effects.
The "functional equivalent" to a negative declaration must demonstrate that the project would
not have any significant environmental effects.
To analyze the environmental impacts of the zero-trash amendment to the Basin Plan, the
Regional Board relied exclusively on its initial study-type checklist. Apparently, the Regional
SACRA.'vI ENTOV B UCKMAN�28590. I
22
Board intended its checklist to be the functional equivalent of a negative declaration. However,
on appeal, the Regional Board argued for the first time that its checklist constituted a first-tier
EIlt. T'he Regional Board contended that "tier two environmental review [of the Zero-Trash
TMDL] is the responsibility of the local agencies who will deternune how they intend to comply
with the performance standards." The Regional Board claimed that it should not be required to
prepaze more extensive documentation to analyze the environmental impacts of its regulation
because "there is no way to examine project-level impacts that are entirely dependent upon
speculative possibilities of how subsequent decisionmakers may choose to comply [with the
Zero-Trash TMDL]." In other words, the Regional Board argued that because its regulation did
not specify the precise means by which the regulated parties would achieve compliance with the
standard, the Board could not be compelled to undertake environmental review of the reasonably
foreseeable environmental impacts of compliance.
The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments and found the Regional Board's CEQA
documentation inadequate on two grounds. First, the checklist did not qualify as a iirst EIR.
Second, the checklist was not sufficient because an EIR was required. Although the checklist
described the benefcial impacts of the amended Basin Plan, it denied the project would have any
environmental impact on land. However, the cities had presented evidence that the VSSs and
the catch basin inserts would increase noise levels, traffic, and soil displacement. The Board
failed to analyze these potential environmental impacts and failed to even prepare the "functional
equivalent" of a negative declaration. Therefore, the zero-trash TMDL was gromulgated in
violation of CEQA and was invalid.
(2006)
San Bernardino Associated Governments v. Superior eourt, 135 Cal. App. 4th 1106
In this case, Best Best & Krieger attorneys Michelle Ouellette, Steven DeBaun and
Megan Starr successfully defended the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and
the San Bernazdino County Board of Supervisors from a suit alleging that SANBAG was
required to prepare an EIR before placing on a special election ballot a tax measure authorizing
future highway, freeway and Metrolink construction. SANBAG had found that its action was
exernpt, stating that its submission of the measure to the voters was not a project under CEQA.
Later that same month, the Boazd passed a Resolution calling for a special election in November
and posted its own Notice of Exemption, which found that the Board's action in placing the item
on the ballot was ministerial and thus not subject to CEQA review. The court agreed that neither
agency's actions constituted a project under CEQA. Consequently, the Sierra Club should have
filed its challenge within 35 days of the posting of the Notice of Exemption, and Sierra Club's
suit was filed too late.
Under the Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act, each county board of
supervisors can create its own local transportation authority and impose a sales tax to fund its
local transportation needs. Before the county can impose the sales tax, a transportation
expenditure plan must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the transportation authority. The
ordinance also must be approved by a majority vote at a special election called "at the request of"
the authority.
23
SACR A M ENTOU B UC KM AN128590.1
��� In San Bernardino, SANBAG serves as the transportation authority. After SANBAG
� distributed its expenditure plan to its member agencies, which approved the plan, SANBAG
requested that the County place the measure on the ballot. SANBAG posted a Notice of
Exemption stating that its request that the County submit the tax measure to the voters was not a
project under CEQA.
The court held that SANBAG had correctly determined that its action was exempt from
CEQA. The court further found that the Board's action in placing the measure on the ballot was
not a project subject to CEQA. The Board had no discretionary power to change the sales tax
ordinance, shape the ballot measure, or even to reject SANBAG's request to place the measure
on the ballot; it merely "called" the special election.
Finally, the court found that Sierra Club's suit was untimely. Only SANBAG's action,
and not the County's, was a project subject to CEQA. Therefore, the 35-day deadline for filing
the lawsuit began to run when SANBAG filed its Notice of Exemption. Because Siena Club
failed to file its lawsuit before this deadline expired, its suit was filed too late.
LITIGATION PROCEDURES
Public agencies' CEQA decisions continue to generate a lot of litigation, which in turn
generates an ever-increasing number of published cases relating to CEQA litigation procedures.
2005 saw an increase in these procedural cases, perhaps reflecting the overall expansion of
CEQA litigation in recent years.
t� - The seven published decisions on CEQA litigation procedures that came out in 2005 are:
(1) Hayward Area Planning Association v. City of Hayward (Hayward 1900, Inc. ), 128 Cal.
App. 4th 176 (2U05), holding that the public agency cannot recover costs associated with having
the real party's representatives prepare the administrative record unless the petitioner has
previously agreed to this arrangement; (2) Mejia v. City of Los Angeles, 130 Cal. App. 4th 322
(2005), finding that the administrative record must include all the documents relevant to any
previous versions of the project, (3) Bowman v. City of Berkeley, 131 Cal. App. 4th 173 (2005),
which granted attorneys' fees to partially successful CEQA petitioners; (4) Concerned Citizens of
La Habra v. City of La Habra (Costco Wholesale Corporation), 131 Cal. App. 4th 329 (2005),
which denied attorneys' fees to partially successful CEQA petitioners; (5) Protect Our Water v.
County of Merced, 130 Cal. App. 4th 488 (2005), which found the petitioner was entitled to
recover attorneys' fees for a previous case that overturned the CEQA approvals because the
administrative record prepared by the petitioner but certified by the lead agency was wholly
inadequate to support the county's actions; (6) Black Historical Sociery v. City of San Diego, 134
Cal. App. 4th 670 (2005), in which petitioner disputed the "excessive" cost of the administrative
record and its case was dismissed after it repeatedly failed to pay any portion of the record costs
or submit an opening brief; and (7) Ramona Unifced School District v. Tsiknas, 135 Cal. App. 4th
510 (2005), holding that neither the initiation nor the maintenance of a CEQA lawsuit against a
public entity will support a claim for abuse of process, even when the environmental claims are
admittedly very "thin."
24
SACRAM ENTOUB UCKMAN�28S90. I
C� Hayward Area Planning Association v. City of Hayward (Hayward 1900, Inc.), 128
Cal. App. 4th 176 (2005)
This case analyzed whether Public Resources Code Section 21167.6 provides authority
for a court to award the costs of preparing a CEQA administrative record to a real party in
interest when the petitioner has not consented to allow a third party to prepare the administrative
record. The court concluded that, where a public agency fails to inform the petitioner that
preparation of the record would be delegated to a third party, the public agency is responsible for
costs.
Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(b) specifies three different means for preparing
an administrative record: (1) the public agency may prepare and certify the record; (2) the
petitioner may prepare the record, subject to certification by the public agency; or (3) the parties
may agree to an alternative method of preparing the record, subject to certiiication by the public
agency. Here, the public agency had delegated the preparation of the record to the real party's
attorney without obtaining petitioner's consent. For that reason, it was not entitled to recover
any costs associated with record preparation.
Mejia v. Ciiy of Los Angeles,130 Cal. App. 4th 322 (2005)
In Mejia, the Second District Court of Appeal overturned a mitigated negative declaration
prepared by the City of Los Angeles for a residential development project because substantial
evidence supported a fair argument that the project would have significant environmental
� impacts on animal wildlife and traffic. The proposed project site was a largely undeveloped 17-
acre parcel surrounded by single-family residences on large lots. In September 2001, the City
prepared an Initial Study and a proposed MND for the project. About eight months later, the
City prepared a new Initial Study and MND to respond to wildlife and traffic concerns
neighboring homeowners raised in response to the prior MND. Still another Initial Study and
proposed MND were prepared in September 2002 to reflect a reduction in the number of
approved homes from 23 to 21.
On appeal, the court addressed only two issues: (1) whether the administrative record
was incomplete, and (2) whether an EIR should have been prepared to analyze potentially
significant impacts to wildlife and traffc.
First, the court held that Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision (e),
requires that documents relating to prior versions of a project also be included in the
administrative record. The court also held that the petitioner's request for judicial notice was the
practical equivalent of a motion to augment the administrative record, thereby excusing
petitioner s failure to file a formal motion.
The court next considered whether the project's potential impacts to wildlife and traffic
required the preparation of an EIR. Recognizing the low threshold for the preparation of an EIR,
the Court found that the most recent biotic assessment for the project site, prepared in December
1998 (about four years before the current version of the project}, concluded that the site was
"relatively rich in animal life," that development of the land would eliminate the site's use as a
' movement corridor for small mammals, and that a survey for sensitive and special status species
SACRAM ENTOV BUCKMAM28590.1
25
�� should be conducted. Numerous residents stated that they had seen many types of wildlife on the
property, including golden eagles, coyotes, hawks, migratory birds, and rabbits. The City's 2002
initial study also stated that the site contained nearly 340 trees, many of which would be
removed upon development of the site. However, the 2002 Initial Study concluded that the
project would not have significant impacts on biological resources because the project site was
not linked to any forest or recreational lands; was not identified as habitat for significant,
endangered, or threatened species; and no significant fish or wildlife species were known to use
the site as a migratory path. Because the 2002 Initial Study's "no impact" conclusion was
inconsistent with the 1998 biotic assessment and with the less than significant conclusion of the
2001 Initial Study, the court held that a fair argument could be made that the project would have
a significant impact to wildlife.
The court then considered the evidence supporting the Initial Study's determination that
impacts to traffic would be "less than significant." The court found that the City had adopted a
significance threshold for traffic impacts which found that projects with less than 40 residential
units would not have significant traffic impacts. Relying on this threshold, the Initial Study
concluded that the 21-unit project had no potential to create significant traffic impacts.
The court held that signiiicance thresholds do not operate conclusively and public
agencies cannot rely on a threshold in the face of substantial evidence that the impacts of the
particular project may be significant. Residents of the neighborhood stated that the street serving
the proposed project was too narrow to accommodate any increase in traf�c, partly due to the
road's use for equestrian purposes. The City Department of Transportation confirmed that the
� street which would serve the proposed project was a"collector street" which would have to carry
� traffic from several surrounding streets. In light of these public comments and in the absence of
a more detailed traffic study, the City should have found that there was a fair argument that the
potential impacts to traffic were signiiicant.
Bowman v. City of Berkeley,131 Cal. App. 4th 173 (2005)
This case is an appeal of an attorneys' fee award arising out of one of the cases we
discussed in our 2005 memorandum, Bowman v. City of Berkeley, 122 Cal. App. 4th 572 (2004).
Although petitioners' CEQA challenge failed, they succeeded in having the City's approval of
the retail and low-income housing project overturned. The appellate court found that petitioners
were successful in obtaining their primary goal — overturning the project approval — and thus
affirmed the trial court's order awarding petitioners attorneys' fees and costs.
Petitioners were successful on only one of their original six causes of action — the due
process claim. However, this was sufficient for them to succeed in having the City's original
project approval vacated. Because petitioners succeeded in having the City's CEQA approval
vacated, they were entitled to some recovery af their attorneys' fees and costs.
Concerned Citizens of La Habra v. City of La Habra (Costco Wholesale Corporation),
131 Cal. App. 4th 329 (2005)
In contrast to Bowman, this case denied recovery of attorneys' fees to a partially
successful CEQA petitioner. Petitioner in Concerned Citizens alleged six causes of action, five
26
SACRAMENTOU BUCKMAN128590.1
�"�_ of which were decided against it. However, with regard to the CEQA cause of action, the trial
� court found that the record did not contain substantial evidence to support the negative
declaration's conclusion that traffic impacts from "cut-through" traffic in neighborhoods near the
proposed Costco would be less than signiiicant. The court ruled that the City needed to
undertake additional analysis in an Initial Study and then issue a new MND or prepare an EIR.
Petitioner contended it was entitled to attorneys' fees under the private attorney general
doctrine because its partial success resulted in a benefit to the commuters in the neighborhoods
close to the proposed Costco. The court rejected this argument because: (1) all but one of
petitioner's causes of action had failed, and (2) the inadequacy in the record support for the
MND's conclusions about cut-through trafiic was a"minute blemish" which, when corrected,
would not likely change the project. The appellate court reasoned that the benefit to the public
was not "significant" and, thus, petitioners were not entitled to recover their fees.
Protect Dur Water v. County of Merced, 130 Cal. App. 4th 488 (20Q5)
This appeal concerns the attorneys' fees motion brought by petitioners following Protect
Our Water v. Counry of Merced 110 Cal. App. 4th 362 (2003). In 2001, POW filed a petition for
writ of mandate challenging a conditional use permit the County of Merced issued for a surface
mining operation project. In 2003, the Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to set aside the
County's approval for the mining project because evidentiary support for the County's approval
could not be found in the poorly organized administrative record. Notably, POW had elected to
prepare the administrative record itself. The County merely certified the record, but the court
(� chastised the County for the record's lack of organization and inadequacy.
On remand from the appellate court decision, POW moved for attorneys' fees, claiming
that its lawsuit bestowed a beneiit to the public. The court agreed that POW had prevailed in the
mandate proceeding and was entitled to recover its fees. Ironically, then, POW was found to be
entitled to recover its fees because the administrative record that POW prepared was so wholly
inadequate to support the county's actions.
This second POW case again reemphasizes the need for any administrative record
certified by the public agency to be complete, accurate, and organized.
Black Historical Sociery v. City of San Diego,134 Cal. App. 4th 670 (2005)
Jn this case, the Black Historical Society filed a petition challenging the approval of a low
income housing development on a site that it claimed had historical significance. The Court
dismissed the appeal when the Society failed to obtain or file with the court a copy of the
administrative record or an opening brief.
The petitioner requested that the City prepare the administrative record and deliver it
within 190 days. The City asked the petitioner to provide a$2,(}00 deposit for preparation of the
record. Two months later, the Society indicated it intended to seek a waiver of costs for
preparation of the record. The City countered that Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1094.5(a)
and 1094.6(c� required the petitioner to pay for costs. The court ordered the parties to meet and
' confer to settle the issue, but the parties were not able to resolve this dispute. After the record
was finalized, the court ordered the petitioner to bear the costs and required the petitioner to
27
SACRAMENTOUB UC KMAN�28590.1
�- prepare an opening brief before the end of the month. The court subsequently extended the iiling
deadline by about three weeks, but the petitioner failed to meet this deadline. The project
applicant then brought a motion to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution, which the court
granted.
On appeal, the petitioner claimed that it had been prevented from answering its case
because the City had improperly "held the record hostage." The court rejected this contention
noting that the petitioner never sought a court order requiring the City to release the record
without prepayment and did not avail itself of alternate means of obtaining the record as allowed
under CEQA. See Pub. Resources Code Section 21167.6(b)(2). Because petitioner had
requested the City to prepare the record and then failed either to pay the costs as ordered by the
court or to seek modification of the order, the granting of the motion to dismiss was appropriate.
Ramona Unifted School District v. Tsiknas, 135 Cal. App. 4th 510 (2005)
In this case, Ramona Unified School District filed a claim for abuse of process against
neighbors who had filed a series of unsuccessful CEQA challenges to an elementary school
project. RUSD adopted a mitigated negative declaration, which was not timely challenged, and
subsequently adopted an addendum that covered converting the project from septic tanks to
sewer service. Petitioner filed a lawsuit challenging the addendum. While the suit was pending,
RUSD decided to scrap the plans in the Addendum and move forward with the septic system as
originally planned. RUSD filed a motion seeking judgment and the court found a11 challenges to
the MND were time barred, the sewer system plans in the addendum were abandoned, and in any
( event, the addendum complied with CEQA.
Undeterred, Neighborhood Alliance for Safe Ramona School Districts (NASRS) filed an
amended petition claiming the traffic analysis in the addendum remained operative. After RUSD
demurred, the court dismissed this second petition on essentially the same grounds as the first.
NASRS then filed a motion for private attorney general fees arguing the practical effect
of ihe litigation forced RUSD to abandon changes to the project that did not satisfy the CEQA
process. The court denied NASRS's motion for fees and RUSD's cross-motion for sanctions.
This led to RUSD iiling suit against NASRS, its principals and attorney for abuse of process and
barratry. NASRS filed a motion to strike under the burden shifting anti-SLAPP statute and the
trial court concluded RUSD could not produce sufficient evidence to show probable success.
Additionally, the trial court awarded NASRS attorney's fees. RUSD subsequently appealed.
The Appellate Court found that the continued pursuit of ineritless litigation for an
improper collateral purpose, although actionable under malicious prosecution principles, was not
separately actionable under an abuse of process theory as RUSD had argued. The court
disregarded RUSD's labeling of its clairn as abuse of process and instead concluded that the
gravamen of the claim was for malicious prosecution, which was barred. The court determined
that a government entity could not institute a proceeding against a former plaintiff based on
malicious prosecution because the constitutional right to petition would be improperly chilled if
citizens were faced with the specter of defending a malicious prosecution claim if their
petitioning activity was unsuccessful. Although RUSD conceded its claim challenged acts that
were taken in furtherance of constitutional rights of petition, RUSD argued that there was
28
SACRAIvIENTOV BUCKMA,'V�28590.1
( evidence the defendants had the ulterior motive to harass RUSD into canceling the project and
misused the writ proceedings to pursue claims NASRS knew were substantively meritless.
Nonetheless, the Court concluded that the anti-SLAPP statute was to be broadly construed and
neither the initiation nor maintenance of a CEQA lawsuit against a public entity supports an
abuse of process claim.
CONCLUSION
As always, CEQA remains complicated and difficult to apply. The only constant in this
area of law is how quickly the rules change.
Should you have any questions about any of the cases discussed above, or about the
environmental review of any of your agency's projects, please contact your BB&K attorney for
assistance.
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
Jennifer T. Buckman
Charity B. Schiller
�
29
S A C R AM EN TOU B U C KM A M2 8590.1
Cbcc: Municipal, Special Districts, Natural Resources
SACRAMENTOV BUCKMAI�28590.1
30